JUDGMENT Petitioners 2 to 5 have filed this revision petition under section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the impugned order dated 30.8.96, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 92-N93, whereby their application filed under Order I Rule 10, seeking their impleading as defendants in the above Civil Suit, was dismissed. Petitioner No. I Radheshyam Sharma has also joined the above petitioners in this revision petition, though he is challenging that part of the impugned order whereby his application filed under section 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking stay of further proceedings in the present suit, was dismissed. During the course of hearing Shri Ajit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, confirmed his submissions to the dismissal of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10. Non-petitioner No. l/Plaintiff Madan Mohan had filed a suit against non-petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5 : namely Satnam Singh, Kamta Prasad, Sudarshan Kumari, Manoj Kumar and petitioner No. 1 Radheshyam Sharma for permanent injunction and execution of the tenancy agreement. Petitioners 2 to 5, who all are sisters of non-petitioner No.3 Kamta Prasad, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 claiming themselves to be necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff .opposed the above prayer on the ground that his suit as not a title suit and no relief was sought against these four petitioners and, therefore, they were neither necessary pat1ies nor proper party to the suit. The trial Court, on considering the rival submissions of the parties and the nature of the suit and the pleadings, found that petitioners 2 to 5 were not necessary parties to the suit and, therefore, dismissed their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, vide the impugned order dated 30.8.96. Shri Ajit Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, as they were necessary parties to the suit. Shri Singh further submitted that these petitioners have the apprehension that their brother Kamta Prasad may join hands with the plaintiff which may result in a collusive decree in regard to the disputed property, wherein the petitioners also claim equal rights. Shri Singh further submitted that these petitioners have the apprehension that their brother Kamta Prasad may join hands with the plaintiff which may result in a collusive decree in regard to the disputed property, wherein the petitioners also claim equal rights. Shri Umesh Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, relying upon this Court's decision in the case of Vijay Singh v. Hari Singh, reported in 1997(II) MPWN 154, submitted that the plaintiff has a right to choose the defendant and if ultimately it is found that necessary parties are not joined, his suit would be dismissed. In the case of Vijay Singh v: Hari Singh (supra), it was held that "since the finding is recorded that other co-owners are not necessary party to this suit, therefore, no direction can be given to implead them as a party. Moreover, the plaintiff is dominus litis and he has right to choose the defendant. I fultimately it is found that necessary parties are not joined, his suit is liable to be dismissed." In the present case also, the suit filed by plaintiff Madan Mohan was only for permanent injunction and execution of the tenancy agreement against the five defendants including the petitioners' brother Kamta Prasad. The plaintiff did not seek any relief against these four petitioners. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings, given in the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that these four petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any such illegality which may necessitate interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court, on 28.11.96, staying further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 92-A/93, pending in the Court of I1Ird Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa stands vacated automatically.