ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 31.5.90 in Suit No. 154 of 1990 the appellants have approached this Court through the above mentioned appeal and have contended that the order of the trial Court directing the status-quo to continue is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the above direction would debar the Collector from deciding any question raised on behalf of the appellants about its right of fishing and seeking settlement regarding that right. We are not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. However, to meet the ends of justice we make it clear that if the appellants approach the Collector for any relief regarding settlement of fishery right it would be open to the Collector to deal with the claims of the parties before him without being influenced by the observations of the trial Court in its order dated 31.5.90. 2. Moreover, on a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the order of the status-quo was operative till 13.7.90 and the aforesaid date has expired, therefore, we think that this appeal has no legs to stand on and deserves to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the plaintiff/applicant has preferred Civil revision No. 557 of 1990 under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others. The main grievance of the applicant before us is that the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 in this revision petition who had filed the connected appeal which has been dismissed today are not necessary parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, the impleadment by the Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in the revision petition is wholly unjustified and the trial court has acted illegally with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in impleading the aforesaid opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in the present writ petition. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Provision of Section 116(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 to 5 in the present writ petition. 4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Provision of Section 116(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, it is not necessary to decide the claim of the parties put forward before us regarding their right and title in fishing in the river in question. However, we agree with the trial court that the impleadment of the opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in the suit filed by the plaintiff/applicant atleast proper though the trial Court has t them as necessary parties. However, in view of the Provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a Revisional Court can interfere the order of the Subordinate Court only when Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In opinion, the trial Court has not failed to exceeded jurisdiction nor has exceeded its jurisdiction it acted illegally or with material irregularity impleading the Opposite Parties nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case a relevant question arises whether the parties have any right and title regarding fishery right the river in question on the basis of the contract relying upon the Provisions of Gaon Samaj Manual. After hearing the counsel for the parties we think both the parties arc asserting right. It need be determined by the Court with reference regard law and evidence led in the case. To our mind, revision petition has no merits and the impleadment of the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit filed by plaintiff can not be characterised proper. 6. For the forgoing discussions above F.A.F.O. No. 598 of 1990 preferred by the site parties nos. 3 to 5 and the Civil Revision 557 of 1990 preferred by the plaintiff/applicant deserve to be dismissed. Both Appeal and Revision are hereby dismissed. Parties are directed bear their own costs. It is expected that if any the parties approach the Collector, he will with the claim of the parties without being moved by the observations by the trial court in impugned order to the effect that the status be maintained. Both Appeal and Revision are hereby dismissed. Parties are directed bear their own costs. It is expected that if any the parties approach the Collector, he will with the claim of the parties without being moved by the observations by the trial court in impugned order to the effect that the status be maintained. In our opinion, the aforesaid reactions do not debar the Collector to decide claim of the parties when they approach hereafter. 7. Copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment requisite charges within 48 hours.