JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 7.12.90, passed by learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby he rejected the application submitted by the petitioner under 0.1 R. 10 C.P.C. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that N.P. Nos. 1 to 3 were allotted a piece of land by the Non-Petitioner No. 4. Later on, the Non-Petitioner No. 5, cancelled the allotment. Under these circumstances Non-Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit against the non-petitioners No. 4 and 5 for declaration and injunction. It was prayed that the order of the non-petitioner No. 5 dated 9.4.1990, by which the allotment of the land was cancelled should be declared null and void, and the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the disputed land. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under 0.1 R. 10 C.P.C. stating that the petitioner has a right of way in the land which has been allotted to the plaintiffs; that on his prayer the allotment has been cancelled and that the disputed land being a strip of land, should have been sold by public auction and not otherwise. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge, vide his order dated 7th December, 1990. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that the limited question in the suit is as to whether the order of the Government cancelling the allotment is valid or not and under these circumstances the petitioner is not a necessary party. The learned District Judge further held that if the petitioner has a right of way over the disputed land, that cannot be decided in the present suit. Against this order, the applicant has come in revision. I have heard Mr. D.D. Patodia, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.L. Agrawal, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioners. Mr. Patodia argued that he has a right of way through the disputed land and as such the land cannot be allotted to the plaintiffs. He further argued that on his complaint, the Government cancelled the allotment and as such he is a necessary party. His third argument is that the disputed land being a strip of land, should be auctioned only by a public auction and cannot be purchased by the plaintiffs by private sale. The N.P. Nos. He further argued that on his complaint, the Government cancelled the allotment and as such he is a necessary party. His third argument is that the disputed land being a strip of land, should be auctioned only by a public auction and cannot be purchased by the plaintiffs by private sale. The N.P. Nos. 1 to 4 in collusion with the N.P. No. 4 purchased the land and as such the interest of the petitioner and other public persons can not be watched unless he is impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In support of his arguments. Mr. Patodia placed reliance on Murlidhar v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar (1978 RLW, 34) , and Shyam Sunder Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan and others (1987 (II) RLR 292) . 3. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioners argued that the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit. He argued that in case the petitioner is impleaded in the suit, the scope of inquiry is likely to be enlarged. He further argued that the inquiry which the petitioner wants to make in the present suit is foreign to the scope of the suit and as such the petitioner cannot be impleaded in the present suit. He argued that the petitioner has filed his independent suit and that inquiry can be done in that suit. He also drew my attention to Para No. 3 of the application, submitted by the petitioner, in which it has been mentioned specifically that the land 40' x 7' has been excluded in allotment. In support of his arguments, Mr. Agrawal placed reliance on Ramesh Chandra v. Mukhtyar Singh, 1980, RLW 110 and Girdhari Lal v. Nagar Parishad and another 1988 (1) WLN 68 . 4. In Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) it has been held by this Court as under:- "The non-petitioner No. 4 wants to become a party independently in his own right and wants to get the controversy determined in this very suit whether he is owner and in possession of the suit property. This kind of controversy as raised by the non-petitioner No. 4 would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant." This Court allowed the revision and dismissed the application submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 5. This kind of controversy as raised by the non-petitioner No. 4 would be totally foreign to the controversy in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant." This Court allowed the revision and dismissed the application submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 5. In Rameshwar Dayal v. U.I.T., Alwar and others ( 1989 (1) RLR 231 ) , it has been held by this Court as under:- "The only question in controversy in the suit at present is as to whether the constructions made by the petitioner over the Chabutara were made without obtaining the permission of the Urban Improvement Trust. By adding defendants Nos. 4 and 5 as parties to the suit, the scope of inquiry in the suit would be enlarged and the question as to whether the Gali over which the Chabutara stands is a joint Gali of the parties, which have to be gone into. This matter is'not covered by the suit as it exists and the non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 by getting themselves impleaded as parties in the suit cannot be permitted to enlarge the scope of the suit As a result of impleading of non petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 as parties to the suit, the petitioner would have to deal with the matters which are not subject matter in controversy and to that extent he would be adversely affected." 6. This Court allowed the revision and dismissed the application submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. These two cases directly deal with the matter. In Girdhari Lal's case (Supra) this Court Feld that applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. No relief has been claimed in the plaint against the non-petitioner No. 2 and his presence is not required for any complete or effectual adjudication of any question involved in the suit. The suit is for perpretual injunction and has been filed against the Municipality and all the reliefs claimed are also against the Municipality. In view of this, the learned Judge allayed the revision and rejected the application submitted under 0. 1 R. 10 C.P.C..In this case the judgment cited by the petitioner and reported in 1978 RLW 34 was considered and was held to be not applicable to the facts of that case. In this case also judgments cited by Mr. Patodia are not relevant to the facts of the present case. 1 R. 10 C.P.C..In this case the judgment cited by the petitioner and reported in 1978 RLW 34 was considered and was held to be not applicable to the facts of that case. In this case also judgments cited by Mr. Patodia are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The only controversy in the present case is limited one as to whether the order passed by the Government is liable to be set-aside or not. In case the petitioner is impleaded in the suit as a defendant, the scope of the inquiry is certainly going to he enlarged which would cause unnecessary complications and injury to the plaintiffs. The order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and. there is no question of any interference in revision in the order passed by the trial court. 7. Consequently, the revision is dismissed without any order as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******