JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Banswara dated October 21, 1989 by which be has rejected the application of the petitioners moved Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleading it as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 74/89 Vivek Bhambhani v. State and Ors. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The petitioner had applied for the grant of a mining lease near village Khema Tallai (Banswara). On August 11, 1987, the Mining Engineer. Udaipur granted permission area was de-marketed and de markation and other fees and advance dead-rent were deposited. The Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur ordered not to grant the Mining lease for the said area as it was a grazing land. On March 28, 1989, the Mining lease of the aforesaid area was granted in favour of the non-petitioner. On knowing it the petitioner filled an appeal before the Additional Director, Mines, Udaipur. He issued notice the non-petitioner No. 1. and stayed the operation of the said order dated March 28, 1989 and further directed the non-petitioner No. 1 not to undertake any Mining operation in the area by his order dated July 30, 1989. Thereafter, the non-petitioner No. 1 filed the said suit in the court of the Munsif, Banswara challenging the aforesaid order dated July 21, 1989 and also the consequential order dated 26, 1989 of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara. The plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 did not implead the petitioner. As such he moved an application Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleading him. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif rejected the application by his order under revision. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif rejected the application by his order under revision. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. He contended that the stay order has been passed by the Additional Director, Mines, Udaipur (non petitioner No. 2) in the appeal of the petitioner and a relief has been sought in his suit by the non-petitioner No. 1 for declaration that the said stay Order and the consequential order passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara (non-petitioner No. 4) are void and ineffective, the petitioner has a direct and vital interest in the suit. By the order passed in the suit the stay order passed by the Additional Director, Mines has rendered inoperative, it has adversely affected his interest and this aspect of the case was not at all considered by the learned trial court. He also argued at length on the merits of the case. He relied upon 1984 RLR 351 , 1978 WLN 34 and . 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 that in every suit the plaintiff is dominus litue, he is free to choose against whom he will fight and against whom he will not fight, be the effect whatever may. He further contended that Mining lease has duly been granted in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner has no right in the area for which Mining lease has been granted, he would not suffer any irreparable injury or the order under revision, if allowed to stayed, would not occasion a failure of justice to him. He also contended that the suit can well be decided in absence of the petitioner, his presence is not at all necessary and he has no direct interest in the suit. He relied upon and 1969 WLN 316. 5. The learned Counsel for the-petitioners No. 2 to 4 supported the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order granting mining lease in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1 and order has be passed in this appeal by the Additional Director. He relied upon and 1969 WLN 316. 5. The learned Counsel for the-petitioners No. 2 to 4 supported the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order granting mining lease in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1 and order has be passed in this appeal by the Additional Director. Mines (non-petitioner No. 3) restraining the non-petitioner No. 1 from operating the area in respear of which mining lease hat been granted to him. It is also not in dispute that a relief has specifically been claimed in his suit by the non-petitioner No. 1 for declaration that the said order of the Additional Director, Mines passed in the appeal of the petitioner and the consequential order of the Assistant Mining Engineer (non-petitioner No. 4) are null, void and ineffective and he is not bound to obey them. In this suit an injunction has also been sought against the defendants (non petitioners Nos. 2 to 4) from not obstructing the plaintiff (non-petitioner No. 1) in operating the said mine. It is thus clear that if the suit is decreed, the petitioner's appeal before the Additional Director, Mines (non-petitioner No. 3) would be rendered infructous and futile. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner has no direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. In no case cited by the learned Counsel for the parties such a controversy was involved. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Munsif should have impleaded the petitioner as a defendant in the suit. He has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading him as a defendant. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner will be impleaded as a defendant in the suit No. 74 of 1989 - Vivek Bhambhani v. State and Ors. , pending in the court of Munsif, Banswara.Revision allowed. *******