JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Civil Court, affirmed in revision, rejecting its application for being joined as party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. a perusal of the plaint, Annexure P/1, shows that the plaintiffs/respondent" have filed a suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction against the respondents No.6 and 7 claiming the land to be of their Bhumiswami rights and in their possession. It appears that the trouble started because the petitioner moved an application for allotment of that land treating it to be the land forming part of industrial area. Admittedly, and as, disclosed by Annexure P/6, there was a proposal for allotment of the land to the petitioner, but that proposal did not materialise and the proposal did not give the petitioner any right. On the date of the suit and even thereafter the petitioner had not acquired any right, title or interest, in the property in suit. The petitioner would neither be a necessary nor a proper party within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of order 1, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 has rightly relied on several observations made by a Full Bench decision of this Court, in Pannalal v. Jiwanlal ( 1976 JLJ 84 ). In our opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. The petition is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.