K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE revision is filed against the order of the First Additional civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Sagar in I. A. II in O. S. No. 37 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the respondent in the revision. The revision petitioner made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC before the Trial Court to come on record as the second defendant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-Town Municipality for permanent injunction, alleging interference in possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff/respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner filed an application to come on record in I. A. II claiming that the revision petitioner is in possession of the property and that, she has purchased the property from the respondent. The said fact of transfer of sale of property in favour of the revision petitioner is in controversy. The Trial Court holding that impliedly the petitioner is not necessary party for determining the crucial issues involved in the suit, rejected the application. Being aggrieved, the revision is filed. ( 3 ) AFTER going through the order of the trial Court and on consideration of the facts involved, it becomes clear that the dispute sought to be made out by the revision petitioner has nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendant-Town Municipality. The plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. On the other hand, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property and wants to come on record to dispute the claim of possession of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) THE contention raised by the revision petitioner in I. A. II is wholly not germane to adjudicate the controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit. ( 5 ) ORDER 1, Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC deal with the joinder of plaintiffs and defendants in a suit. The provisions pertaining to joinder of plaintiffs and defendants in Rules 1 and 3 of Order 1 make out similar requisite grounds enabling joinder of plaintiffs and defendants in a suit. For convenient reference, the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 1 of the CPC is extracted hereunder. "3. The provisions pertaining to joinder of plaintiffs and defendants in Rules 1 and 3 of Order 1 make out similar requisite grounds enabling joinder of plaintiffs and defendants in a suit. For convenient reference, the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 1 of the CPC is extracted hereunder. "3. Who may be joined as defendants.-All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. " ( 6 ) IN the present scheme of Code of Civil procedure, only one set of rival claims between the parties to the suit or persons claiming through them in respect of same subject matter to which all of them are related and against whom the reliefs are claimed jointly, severally or in the alternative can be joined as defendants and such a rival claim can be adjudicated in a suit. It is not permissible in law to entertain in a suit multiple rival claims or multicornered contests between the multiple set of parties. ( 7 ) IN a suit for permanent injunction, only two basic issues would arise for consideration, one being the question of possession and other being alleged interference by the defendant or defendants. In the instant case, if the case put forth by the petitioner is entertained for adjudication, it rather confuses and confounds issues involved in the suit and adds contradictory dimensions to the litigations whereunder no effective decree could be passed. In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the revision lacks merit and hence dismissed petition dismissed. --- *** --- .