D. K. Jain,j. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order, dated 6 December, 1986, passed by Subjudge, 1st Class, Delhi whereby petitioners application underorder I Rule 10, CPC for impleadment as a party in Suit No. 525 of 1982 was dismissed. ( 2 ) IT appears from the lower Court s record that one Mohan Lal, claiming to be in physical possession of the premises bearing No. 1090/2, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli, New Delhi, filed a Suit (No. 593/81) seeking a declaration that he was entitled to the possession of the said premises, against the petitioners herein and one Shambhu Dayal who was impleaded as a proforma defendant. Subsequently, the said Shambhu Dayal, also filed a Suit (No. 525 /82) for declaration and injunction against the said Manohar Lal, claiming that he was a tenent in the aforesaid premises. However, the petitioners, who also claimed to be in possession of the premises, were not impleaded as parties to the suit. ( 3 ) THE petitioners filed an application for their impleadment as defendants in Suit No. 525/82 on the plea that it was necessary for complete and effectual adjudication and for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. As noted above the application has been dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioners have not alleged that they are necessary parties to the suit. ( 4 ) IN response to the show cause notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, namely Shri Shambhu Dayal, wherein, while opposing petitioners impleadment in the suit it is pleaded that any decision/judgment to be passed in Suit No. 525/82 will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioners in the other suit bearing No. 593/81, filed by Mohan Lal against Shambhu Dayal. ( 5 ) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that name of Mr. H. C. Shukija, Advocate has been shown in the cause list. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are necessary parties because any adjudication in the suit filed by Shambhu Dayal against Mohan Lal seeking declaration to the effect that he is in possession of the premises in question as a tenant would vitally affect their rights because they are in possession of the said shop. ( 7 ) I find no ground to interfere. Admittedly in the suit filed by Mohan Lal (Suit No. 593/81), seeking declaration that he is in possession of property No. 1090 /2, the petitioners are also parties as defendants No. 1 and No. 2. That suit was filed prior to the filing of the suit in which the petitioners are seeking impleadment and in all the probability is likely to be decided prior to the suit in question. Once all the issues are finally tried and decided in that suit with regard to the same property, which is the subject matter of Suit No. 525/82, that decision operates as res judicata. and will be binding on Shambhu Dayal and Mohan Lal, who are the parties in Suit No. 525/82. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the apprehension expressed by learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing that the decision in Suit No. 525 /82 between Shambhu Dayal and Mohan Lal may act as res judicata against the petitioners. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The record of the Trial Court in both the suits be sent back forthwith. Let both the suits be listed before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi on 20 March, 1997 for assigning the cases to the same Court for the final disposal.