JUDGMENT The trial Court finding that the non-applicant No. 2 was a party in the proceedings pending before the Revenue Court granted his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being joined as a party defendant. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant states that the plaintiff being dominus litis is entitled to join only those parties against whom he claims the relief and Court can not force him to join any other person as a party. Counsel for the non-applicants have opposed the revision. Undisputedly, the non-applicant No. 2 is a party to the proceedings pending in the Revenue Court between the present applicant and non-applicant No. 2. The question of title, mutation etc. were also pending consideration before the Revenue Court. If the non-applicant No. 2 was asserting hostile title and was claiming Bhumiswami rights against the present applicant then he would certainly be a necessary party in the present suit because if the judgment is delivered in the present suit in favour of the present applicant against the State Government alone it would adversely affect his rights. The Court below was justified in granting the application. The revision is dismissed. No costs.