JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.4.1999 whereby the trial Court had accepted the application of respondents for impleading them as defendants a/O. 1 R. 10 in civil Suit No. 282/97. 2. The revision - petitioner had filed a suit against the defendant-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur for restraining them to interfere in the lawful possession of petitioner, which interim injunction is said to have been granted by the trial Court. 3. The respondents No. 2 to 5 moved an application in the suit stating therein that they are residents of the locality and that the property in dispute has been entered as part of the park. They have further stated that the plaintiff had trespassed on property in question. It was further alleged that even the Municipal Corporation has not given any permission to make construction. The Trial Court had accepted the application for impleading the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as defendant to the suit on the ground that by impleadment of such parties to the suit the clear picture shall be revealed, therefore, they were added as defendant. 4. The revision petition was fixed for vacation of stay order, but the parties desired that the revision petition itself be decided at admission stage, as is clear from the order passed by this Court on 14.9.2000. 5. Arguments on the revision petition has been heard of counsel for both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by impleading the applicants as defendants to the suit. It is submitted that no relief has been claimed against such defendants, nor such defendants are concerned with the property in question. If at all there is any dispute, that is in between the plaintiff/petitioner and the Municipal Corporation who possesses all the record and it is the Municipal Corporation who would safeguard its interest. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to enlarge the scope of litigation by adding the defendants. 7. If at all there is any dispute, that is in between the plaintiff/petitioner and the Municipal Corporation who possesses all the record and it is the Municipal Corporation who would safeguard its interest. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to enlarge the scope of litigation by adding the defendants. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rantesh Hirachand Kundanntal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 524 , wherein it was held that the Court cannot direct the plaintiff dealer to add the lessee as defendant in the suit and the fresh litigation with such party would be avoided by impleadment is not a good enough reason. 8. The appellant in that case had proceeded against the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay. It was submitted that the addition of respondent would result in causing serious prejudice to the appellant and the substitution or the addition of a new cause of action would only widen the issue which is required to be adjudicated and settled. The joining of the party would embarrass the plaintiff and issues not germane to the suit would be required to be raised. It was further observed that what makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be hound by the result of the action and the. question is to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely sett led unless he is a party. A clear distinction has been drawn between suits relating to property and those in which the subject-matter of litigation is a declaration as regards status or legal character. In the former category, the rule of personal interest as distinguished from the commercial interest is required to be shown before a person may be added as a party. A clear distinction has been drawn between suits relating to property and those in which the subject-matter of litigation is a declaration as regards status or legal character. In the former category, the rule of personal interest as distinguished from the commercial interest is required to be shown before a person may be added as a party. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must he directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. The rule does not contemplate joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. 9. Similarly the reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Rameshwar Dayal v. UIT, Alwar & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 231 , wherein it was held that by adding defendant as party to the suit the scope of enquiry in the suit would be enlarged and the question as to whether the 'Gali' over which Chabutra stands is a joint Gali of the parties, would have to be gone into. As a result of the impleading, the petitioner would have to deal with the matters which are not subject-matter in controversy and to that extent he would be adversely affected. It was held that by impleading parties to the suit, the Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 10. Vide impugned order the trial Court had impleaded the respondents as party to the suit on the ground that the impleaded respondents have better knowledge of circumstances and can assist the Court for reaching to a just conclusion. In my opinion, it cannot be a ground for impleading a party as defendant, where the property in question belongs to Municipal Corporation or the plaintiff. The question of title can be settled between the parties of original suit in the litigation in hand. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction legally and has committed material irregularity while allowing the respondents to be added as defendants. The impugned order hereby quashed and set aside. 12. With the above observations, the revision petition is allowed. No costs.Revision allowed. *******