Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated the 21st March, 1987, passed by Sbri H. P. Singh, Munsif, Giridih, in Eviction Suit No.21 of 1985 whereby and whereunder he has permitted the defendants-opposite party Nos.2 to 7 to be impleaded as intervenors. 2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned suit originally as against opposite party No.1. In the said suit, the petitioner prayed that opposite party No.1 be evicted from the premises in question on the ground of default and personal necessity in terms of the provisions of Sections 11 (1) (c) and 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. During the hearing of the aforementioned suit, opposite parties Nos.2 to 7 filed an application purported to be under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure code on the ground that they have interest in the premises in question. The material allegations in the said application were as follows :- "1. That the land in dispute under the aforesaid suit is raiyati lands of the petitioner intervenors acquired by their father late Bibhuti bhushan Prasad sometime in the year 1932. 2. That after the death of the father of the petitioner-intervenors inherited by succession over the said land of 0.14 acres and got their names mutated by mutation case No.238 of 1963-64 and have been paying rent to the Government of Bihar and coming in peaceful possession over the said land. 3. That along with the said petitioners interveaors, one Sri Gopal krishna Prasad is also one of the successors of the said property. As the petitioaer-intervenors Sri Sunit Kumar is lunatic, he may be allowed to be represented through his natural guardian his mother Smt. Mitheleshwari Devi. " 3. After noticing that in suit only the question of eviction of defendant opposite party No. I, who is said to be the monthly tenant of the plaintiff-petitioner is involved, the learned court below passed the impugned order on the ground that the said opposite party No.1 also denied the title of the plaintiff. The material portion of the said order reads as follows : - "from the perusal of the very rejoinder of the plaintiff para 3, it appears that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiff. The material portion of the said order reads as follows : - "from the perusal of the very rejoinder of the plaintiff para 3, it appears that the defendant has denied title of the plaintiff. Since the petitioners claims their title in the suit property I am of the view that they may be added as the party. Keeping all the above facts in mind the two petitions are allowed. " 4. From a perusal of the aforementioned order, it appears that the court below has not assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of the impugned order. In terms of Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court below could have impleaded the opposite parties Nos.2 to 7 as parties to the suit, if the presence of such persons was necessary for effictionaly and completely adjudicating upon the questions involved in the suit. In the suit the only questions which are required to be gone into for the purpose of disposal of the suit are (a) whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and the original defendant and (b) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground as mentioned in the plaint as against the defendant. For the purpose of disposal of the aforementioned issues, the question as to whether a third party has a title in relation to the property in question or not or any other dispute by and between the plaintiff and opposite party Nos.2 to 7 are wholly irrelevant. In terms of Order I, Rule 10 of the civile Procedure Code, the jurisdiction of the court to implead a person arises only when such defendant is necessary for adjudicating upon and settling of all the questions involved in the suit. 5. Evidently, at the instance of a third pirty neither and issue which does not arise out of the pleadings of the original parties can be raised or revived upon. In my opinion, therefore, as it was not necessary for the court below to decide the question of title by and between the plaintiff-petitioners and inter yeaors opposite party Nos.2 to 7 in the original suit, the impugned order impkading them as parties thereto is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In my opinion, therefore, as it was not necessary for the court below to decide the question of title by and between the plaintiff-petitioners and inter yeaors opposite party Nos.2 to 7 in the original suit, the impugned order impkading them as parties thereto is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In the result this revision application is allowed but, in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.