JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 21.7.1997 passed by VIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in C.O.S.No. 4A/90, thereby allowing the application, presented by non-applicant No.2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, and directing the applicant to implead non-applicant No.2 as defendant in his suit filed against non-applicant No.1 for eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profits. Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code enables the Court to order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Eviction suit is on the fulcrum of contract of tenancy. Admittedly non-applicant No.2 is not party to the contract. That being so, the presence of the non-applicant No.2 is not shown to be necessary to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. Non-applicant No.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In 1972 JLJ 126 (Baijnath v. Stateo! M.P. and others) it is held that plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is for him to choose his opponents. He cannot be compelled to fight against persons not to his choice unless such process is required by any positive rule of law. It is further held as under: "In the instant case it has not been shown how the applicant was directly and legally affected by the adjudication of the suit, and the fact that he was indirectly or incidentally affected was not enough, nor the fact that in his absence the case would not be adequately defended by the State. The prayer of the applicant was thus rightly refused." The order does not reflect as to how the presence of non-applicant No.2 is necessary for deciding the controversy. After perusal of the order and consideration of the legal position, I am satisfied that the Court below has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice complicating the matter and enlarging the scope of the suit. In the circumstances, this revision petition is found to be irrecusable. In the circumstances, this revision petition is found to be irrecusable. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 21.7.1997 is dislodged and the application presented by non-applicant No.2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code is rejected. The Court below shall now proceed in the suit in accordance with law. Even while doing so, I find if fit to observe that if non-applicant No.2 has any independent right, this order shall not preclude him in resorting to appropriate steps, if occasion so arises or if he is so advised. I make no orders as to costs.