JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.3.91 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in C.S. No. 26-A of 1990. The facts leading to this revision petition in short are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit before the lower Court against the respondent No. 2. The applicant filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code or Civil Procedure before the Lower Court for being joined as a party, which was disallowed and a revision filed against that order was also dismissed. The present applicant has filed a probate case No. 6 of 1984 before the Court of the 7th Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore on the basis of a will executed in his favour by deceased Mahant Sheshnarayan Das. In that probate case the subject matter of the suit filed before the District Court is also included. Therefore, the applicant filed an application that the civil suit be stayed till the probate case is decided, because if the civil suit is decreed then the probate application shall become infructuous to the extent of the decree of the Civil Court in respect of the amount deposited with the respondent No. 2. The lower Court disallowed the application holding that the prayer is not tenable because the applicant is not a party to the civil suit, aggrieved by which this revision petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dalal argues that the civil suit should be stayed because of the pendency of the probate application because the objector in the probate case and the plaintiff in the civil suit are the same. I am afraid this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the applicant is not a party to the civil suit and the provisions of S. 10 C.P.C. shall not be attracted in view of the aforesaid position. The lower Court has rightly disallowed the application filed by the applicant and there is no case for interference in the aforesaid order. However, this order shall not come in the way of the applicant if he chooses to resort to any other remedy which may be available to him under the law for protecting his interest in the probate application. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.