JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 25.8.1990, passed by learned A.M.J.M. No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which he dismissed the application submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government vide notification dated 27.11.1988, invited applications for allotment of mining licence of marble. Both the parties applied for licence in respect of plot No. 55/B. The Assistant Engineer(Mines) Makrana, vide its order dated 10.3.1989, allowed the application of the plaintiff non-petitioner and ordered for issuance of licence in his favour. Against this order, the petitioner submitted a revision under Section 47 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1986(for short the 'Rules') before the State Government. He also submitted a stay application. The Deputy Secretary (Mines), on 23.3.1989, stayed the operation of the allotment made by Assistant Engineer (Mines) in favour of plaintiff with regard to plot No. 55/B. The plaintiff instead of filing a revision against the said order before the Central Govt. filed a suit against the Government challenging the order dated 23.3.1989, passed by Dy. Secy.(Mines), Govt. of Rajasthan. An application for temporary injunction was also filed before the said Court and an exparte injunction order was obtained from the said Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. before the trial court on the ground that he is a necessary party in the suit and in case he is not impleaded as a defendant in the suit, his rights would be seriously affected. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.8.1990. Against this order of the trial court, the petitioner has come before this Court in revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner that Rule 7 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1987, provides preferential rights of certain applicants for grant of mining licence. Rule 47 of the said Rules provides that any order passed by the Assistant Engineer(Mines) under the rules can be challenged by an aggrieved party by filing a revision before the State Government. The State Government has power to confirm, modify or rescind the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Mines). Rule 47 of the said Rules provides that any order passed by the Assistant Engineer(Mines) under the rules can be challenged by an aggrieved party by filing a revision before the State Government. The State Government has power to confirm, modify or rescind the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Mines). He argued that against the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Mines), he filed a revision under 0. 47 of the aforesaid rules. He argued that on a stay application filed by the petitioner, the State Government stayed the operation of the order passed by the Mining Engineer on 10.3.89, under such circumstances, he is a necessary party in the suit and in case he is not allowed to be impleaded, his rights will be seriously prejudiced. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, argued that no relief has been claimed against the petitioners that the only relief claimed is against the Government of Rajasthan and as such the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. He argued that the suit has been filed against the State Government, who passed an exparte stay order,behind his back. He further argued that no cause of action arises against the petitioner and further that the petitioner has filed an' application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. after delay. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules gives preferential right to a person who applied `or grant of licence under the aforesaid rules. Rule 47 gives a right of filing revision before the State Government, in case his application is rejected by the Asstt. Engineer(Mines). In the present case, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Engineer(Mines). He filed a revision and also stay application before the State Government. The State Government stayed the operation of the order of Mining Engineer with a view to by-pass the said order, the plaintiff instead of approaching the State Government for modification of the said order or filing any revision before the Central Government filed a suit before a Civil Court and obtained exparte stay order behind the back of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in case any decree is passed in the suit filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan, the rights of the petitioner are seriously affected. Under these circumstances, in case any decree is passed in the suit filed by the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan, the rights of the petitioner are seriously affected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit. The lower court in arbitrary way rejected the application of the petitioner for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. 6. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 25.8.1990, passed by learned A.M.J.M. No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and allow the application of the petitioner submitted under Order 1 R. 10 C.P.C. and direct the said court to implead the petitioner as defendant in the suit No. 1165/89, filed by the non-petitioner. 7. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******