Honble YADAV, J. – Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 2.11.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur allowing the application under O.1 r. 10 C.P.C. of Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2, who claims himself to be landlord of the disputed shops. (2). According to Shri Keshav Singh it is he who lets out the disputed shops to tenant M/s. Shree Ram Traders, non-petitioner No.1, and he does not want to evict him. It is also alleged by Shri Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2, that he is an old disabled man and his daughter plaintiff Smt. Laxmi Devi in collusion of her husband Shri Narayan Singh fraudulently obtained a sale deed on 2.9.1992 without consideration. (3). It is to be noticed that Smt. Laxmi Devi filed the present suit against M/s. Shree Ram Traders, tenant, non-petitioner No.1, for arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide necessity claiming herself to be owner and landlord on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 2.9.92. (4). It is well to remember that under Sub-section (1) (a), (b) and (c) of Sec. 115 CPC mere jurisdictional error is not sufficient to vary or reverse an order under revision inasmuch as proviso (a) and (b) added to renumbered sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 CPC prohibits revisional court from varying or reversing any order including an order deciding an issue made in the course of a suit or other proceedings except where the order if so varied or reversed would finally disposed of the suit or such order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. (5). In the present case the learned counsel failed to satisfy this court any of the two conditions enumerated in newly added proviso (a) and (b) of renumbered sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 115 CPC, therefore, the present revision is not entertainable. (6). The aforesaid question came up for consideration before me in the case of Smt. Sudha & Ors. vs. Manmohan and Others (1), where I have taken the aforesaid view about entertainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC. I see no reason in the present case to differ from the aforesaid decision. The question about entertainability of revision has been gone into in the case of Smt. Sudha & Ors. vs. Manmohan and Others (1), where I have taken the aforesaid view about entertainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC. I see no reason in the present case to differ from the aforesaid decision. The question about entertainability of revision has been gone into in the case of Smt. Sudha & Ors. (supra) in detail which is hereby reiterated and as such I declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge allowing the application under O.1 r. 10 C.P.C. (7). Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the learned District Judge has allowed the application under O.1 r.10 CPC impleading Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2 as one of the defendants amounts exercise of jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity. (8). In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Brij Mohan Bhargava vs. Smt. Leela Bai & Anr. (2). The learned coun- sel for the revisionist placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the decision rendered in the case of Brij Mohan Bhargava (supra). (9). Suffice it to say that the expression `ordinarily used by the learned Single Judge in the case of Brij Mohan Bhargava (supra) leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the proposition of law enunciated in para 4 is not absolute but it is likely to differ from case to case depending on facts of each case. Since the facts and circumstances of the case of Brij Mohan Bhargava (supra) are distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence its ratio decidendi is not applicable in the present case. Another decision relied by the learned counsel for the revisionist rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Virendra Singh vs. Narendra Kumar (3), is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. (10). It is well to remember that courts of law are required to treat like cases alike and different cases differently. He who clings to the latter clings to dry and barren shell and mines truth and substantial justice which is paramount consideration in dispensation of justice. Thus, case of Brij Mohan Bhargava (Supra) and case of Virendra Singh (supra) both are distinguishable for the reasons stated above. (10A). He who clings to the latter clings to dry and barren shell and mines truth and substantial justice which is paramount consideration in dispensation of justice. Thus, case of Brij Mohan Bhargava (Supra) and case of Virendra Singh (supra) both are distinguishable for the reasons stated above. (10A). Next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction, question of title is not required to be decided. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law but it is made clear that the question of title may arise in such suit incidently. (11). It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, indisputably, there is no agreement of tenancy between plaintiff and tenant M/s Shree Ram Traders. She has clearly stated that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between non-petitioners No.1 and 2 i.e. M/s. Shree Ram Traders and Shri Keshav Singh. In fact, the plaintiff claimed herself to be owner and landlord of the disputed shops through so-called registered sale-deed dated 2.9.92 alleged to have been executed by non-petitioner No.2 who is questioning the execution of the alleged sale-deed itself. Therefore, in my humble opinion, on the basis of so-called sale- deed, she cannot be treated to be ipso facto landlord of the shops in question. (12). I am of the opinion, that where the subject matter of a litigation is a dec- laration as regards status or relationship, which is of a legal character than the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in such cases. I am also of the view that if a sub-ordinate court is of the opinion, that by adding a party it would be in a better position to adjudicate upon the controversy involved between the parties then in such a situation, interference within the meaning of Sec. 115 CPC would be imper- missible. (13). A close scrutiny of the order impugned passed by learned District Judge reveals that according to learned District Judge for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy between the parties the impleadment of non-petitioner No.2 is imperative. I am in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the lear- ned District Judge and hold that without impleading Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2, as a party the controversy in the present case cannot be resolved effectively and completely. (14). I am in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the lear- ned District Judge and hold that without impleading Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2, as a party the controversy in the present case cannot be resolved effectively and completely. (14). There is yet another reason to uphold the order impugned inasmuch as according to me the question of addition of parties in the array of defendants under o.1 r.10 CPC is a judicial discretion which has to be exercised judiciously. In the present case the learned District Judge has exercised his discretion by allowing the application under o.1 r. 10 CPC of Keshav Singh, non-petitioner No.2, judiciously which I do not propose to substitute by my own discretion. (15). In my considered opinion the learned District Judge has committed no jurisdictional error in allowing the application under o.1 r. 10 CPC and I am also of the opinion that if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would not occasion a failure of justice rather it would be helpful to adjudicate the controversy between the parties effectively and completely. Consequently, the instant revision is hereby dismissed at admission stage. After dictation of order, learned member of the Bar present in Court made a request to make the order `Reportable. The request is allowed and the order is made `Reportable.