JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested for adjournment on the ground that he may enquire from his client that the suit in which the application was moved, has perhaps been decided by now. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners objected to this adjournment on the ground that the proceedings have been stayed. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay may be vacated and the revision petition may be kept for arguments after two weeks. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 2. Respondent Chothmal instituted a suit against respondents- defendants No. 2 and 3 for injunction in respect of the suit property (thala) described in para No. I of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff is in possession of this property for the last 32 years and he has become owner of the same. This thala is surrounded by the boundary and on one part a temple is in existence for the last 32 years. The applicant prayed for injunction against respondents-defendants No. 2 and 3 for not interfering with his possession of the disputed property and also not to dispossess him. Non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the ownership and adverse possession and stated that this plot belongs to M/s. Noor Marble Traders, Makrana because they purchased the plot on 30.11.73 from one Mr. Ram Chandra. Ram Chandra had purchased this plot from Shri Ram on 7.12.1965. Chothmal is tenant of this thala. Therefore, he has not acquired adverse possession and his suit deserves to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner moved an application under O. 1 R. 10 CPC earlier also and it was decided on merits on 19.10.1993. Thereafter issues were framed. One of the issues is whether M/s. Noor Marble Traders, Makrana is necessary party in the suit ? The petitioner again moved an application under O. 1 R. 10 CPC for impleading it as a defendant in the suit, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 5.2.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed in this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on admission of this revision petition. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed in this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on admission of this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No. I has raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintainable because already one application under O. 1 R. 10 CPC has been considered and rejected on 19.10.1993 and the order has become final. The petitioner moved a second application after about three years, which is barred by res judicata. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff No. I that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit for injunction against respondents-defendants No. 2 and 3. The plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the petitioner. The learned trial Court has considered all the facts of the case and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that the present suit injunction cannot be converted into a suit for title. If the petitioner is allowed to join the suit, then the very nature of the suit will be changed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first application was dismissed at the initial stage and thereafter issues have been framed. The learned trial Court has framed the issue whether the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit ? In view of this changed circumstance, the petitioner filed the second application. The petitioner is the owner of this thala as he purchased it from one Ram Chandra on 30.11.73 and let out,,to respondent No. 1. Permission was also granted to the petitioner for construction on 1.12.73. Defendants- respondents No. 2 and 3 have also filed the written statements to this effect. The plaintiff has filed a false suit against Municipal Board, Makrana without any ground and any decision in the suit will adversely affect the ownership rights of the petitioner. He is interested in the suit property and he also wants to oppose the contention of the petitioner that he has acquired any ownership by adverse possession or he is at all in possession of the same. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The trial Court has already framed the issue whether the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The trial Court has already framed the issue whether the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit. If after recording evidence, it is found that the petitioner is a necessary party, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, his suit may be dismissed or he may be ordered to implead the petitioner as a party in the suit. This suit is for injunction against respondents No. 2 and 3 challenging their action and for injunction that they may not dispossess and interfere in his possession. It is not a suit for declaration of title. Since the trial Court has framed the issues about the necessity of impleading the petitioner as a party in the suit, it will not be appropriate to finally express any opinion on this issue. The relevant fact for consideration is that this is a suit for injunction and the application of the petitioner u/U. I R. 10 CPC has already been considered and decided on merits on 19.10.1993, against which no revision appears to have been preferred and that order has attained finality. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff No. I that the second, application is not maintainable merely because issues were framed after the rejection of the first application. The learned trial Court has considered this contention and has rejected the second application under 0. 1 R. 10 CPC taking the view that it is not maintainable. I do not find any error in the view taken by the learned trial Court. However, the issue framed in this regard is a mixed question of fact and law and the Court will decide that issue after the parties lead their evidence. At this stage, however, in view of the nature of the suit, as it is revealed from the plaint and that the earlier application has been rejected, I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegaiity in the impugned order. Therefore, this revision petition does not deserve to be admitted for hearing. 8. Hence, this revision petition is rejected at the admission stage. However, it is observed that any discussion of the matter in this order, will not come in the way of the trial Court to take any view in deciding the relevant issues on merits in accordance with law.Revision dismissed. *******