ORDER 6.5.2002 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff/opp. party. 2. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 12.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack. In Title Suit No. 95 of 2001. 3. It appears from the impugned order that plaintiff has filed the suit praying for permanently restraining the defendants 1 and 2 not to alienate certain properties out of the suit sched¬ule ‘C’ properties. Defendant No. 1, after his appearance in the suit, filed an application to add the other recorded tenants as the co-defendants in the suit on the ground that their interest should not be jeopardized behind their back while adjudicating the suit. Plaintiff opposed to the said application on the ground that the other recorded tenants are neither necessary nor proper parties and they do not propose to add them as parties to the proceeding. Learned Civil Judge, on consideration of the afore¬said contention of both the parties, rejected the application on the ground that the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties and apart from that any decree, which shall be passed in the suit, shall have no binding effect on any person who is not a party to the suit. The aforesaid approach of the learned Civil Judge is not found to be illegal or erroneous. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with that order by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. It is made clear for the sake of record that being conscious of the positive pleadings of both the parties, if the plaintiff feels that the other recorded tenants or the persons having interest over the properties are not to be added as parties at this stage, in future if such attempt shall be made by the plaintiff, then that should be turned down by the Courts and the consequence shall be suffered by the plaintiff. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Revision dismissed.