JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- These revision petitions have been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, 3-12-77 dismissing the revisions against the learned trial court order dated 24-2-1977 in a case under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, rejecting the application of Mata Prasad for impleadment as party. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The case in the trial court was filed against Ram Manoher defendant seeking his ejectment but in the course of evidence, it also turned out that Mata Prasad could be in possession, although the plaintiff did not admit Mata Prasad to be in possession. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. an application for impleadment should have been allowed by the court and in support, cited rulings reported in A. 1. R. 1983 S.C. 357 and A.I.R. 1976 Alld. 102. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the applicant was not entered in the revenue records and so was not aggrieved by the order, that in view of the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 886, judicial discretion was not to be interfered within revision and only the initial jurisdiction could be interfered with, that in this case, no decree being against Mata Prasad, he will not be injured or affected person, that in case the applicant has any claim of title, he could seek a declaration, that the plaintiff is dominus lities, he cannot be compelled to implead any person against his wishes or requirements, he cited a ruling reported in 1983 A.C.J. 513 against using Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleadment of a party in the place of Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. He further argued that the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 357 is not applicable because it arises out of an order allowing impleadment application and is not against the courts discretion exercised in rejection of such application and that the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1975 Alld. 102 also arises out of an order in consolidation proceedings while in the instant case, no interest of the revisionist was involved. 4. 102 also arises out of an order in consolidation proceedings while in the instant case, no interest of the revisionist was involved. 4. I agree that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited ruling only supported the discretion of the court in allowing application under Order I, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C. but did not make it mandatory for every such application to be allowed. In the instant case, the plaintiff sought ejectment of the defendant in unauthorised possession, if the plaintiff did not want ejectment on the revisionist Mata Prasad, there was no need of determining whether Mata Prasad was in possession or not whether his possession was authorised or unauthorised. The other ruling cited arose from a review petition against the decision in a Writ Petition connected with the consolidation proceedings and must be distinguished in its applicability to the present case which does not involve determination of rights of the revisionist. The court did not choose to order impleadment under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. and the reason is obvious. This Judicial discretion cannot be interfered within this revision petition. The learned counsel for the applicant has not shown how the revisionist is affected by the order. He has never sought any declaration. I agree that it is the plaintiff's right to choose against which defendant wants to file a suit. There is no case of non-joinder of any necessary party. I, accordingly, find no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court and the learned Additional Commissioner also rightly rejected the revision petition. 5. These revision petitions being without force are accordingly, dismissed with costs. 6. This order shall govern revision petition nos. 38 and 42 of 1977-78/ Barabanki.