JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order dated 24.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur in civil original suit No. 106/93 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner filed u/O. 1 R. 10 r/w Section 151 CPC. 2. Non-petitioner No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against non-petitioner No. 2 defendant on the ground that the latter was the tenant of the former on a monthly refit of Rs. 250/- in the suit premises. The suit is still pending in the trial Court. The petitioner filed an application purporting to be u/O. 1 R. 10 r/w Section 151 CPC with the allegations that the aforesaid suit of ejectment was filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 in collusion. In the past the defendant filed a suit for possession against the petitioner, his son Gopal and his wife Geeta Devi with the allegations that the aforesaid persons had taken forcible possession of his property. The suit of the plaintiff filed against the petitioner and others was dismissed on 5.11.1991. The petitioner further alleged that he had been in peaceful possession of the suit premises for more than 50 years. He ha& termed his possession as adverse possession. It was prayed by him that since the above suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is collusive in nature, it is necessary that the petitioner be impleaded as party so that a correct and complete decision in the case may be rendered. The learned trial Court held that since the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is a suit for ejectment, the petitioner cannot be made party because if it was done, the nature of the suit would change and the suit will be converted into a suit for title. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. It may be stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is of ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises. The petitioner wants to be impleaded as defendant in the above suit on ground of his adverse possession. In other words, the petitioner wants to be impleaded in the suit on ground of his possessory title. It may be stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is of ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises. The petitioner wants to be impleaded as defendant in the above suit on ground of his adverse possession. In other words, the petitioner wants to be impleaded in the suit on ground of his possessory title. It is a settled law that in a suit for ejecting tenant, third person claiming title to the suit property, on the basis of possession cannot be added as defendant as such addition would change the nature of the suit. The suit of ejectment would be converted into a suit for title. The provisions of 0.1 R. 10 CPC prohibits impleadment of such a person. 5. For the above reasons, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction to warrant any interference in this revision petition.Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******