Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER aggrieved by order (Annexure P-7) passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 83-A/02, Manoj Kumar v. H. K. Tolani has filed this petition. ( 2. ) BY the aforesaid order the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Ramratan Mohania as party and also the amendment proposed by the petitioner. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel submits that for complete adjudication of the case it is necessary to implead Ramratan as party because he is claiming himself to be the landlord of suit shop. Notice have been served by him on the petitioner and the petitioner has rightly filed the aforesaid application for amendment and for impleadment of Ramratan as defendant. Impleadment of Ramratan will avoid multiplicity of the suit and complete adjudication of the dispute will be done in the present suit. In support of his contention, petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in Kamtaprasad and Anr. v. Smt. Vidyawati and Ors. ( 1995 JLJ 178 ), particularly Paras 11 and 13 of the case. ( 4. ) TO appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against H. K. Tolani on the ground that the petitioner is occupying a shop from respondent H. K. Tolani on tenancy. H. K. Tolani threatened the petitioner for forceable dis-possession from the shop. Consequently the suit was filed for declaration that the petitioner is a legal and valid tenant of defendant and permanent injunction be issued against the defendant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. ( 5. ) FROM the perusal of the plaint it is apparent that the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration against defendant H. K. Tolani that he is landlord of the plaintiff. From the perusal of the pleadings nothing has been averred against Ramratan in respect of whom the present applications have been filed. In the plaint petitioner himself admitted that H. K. Tolani is landlord of the plaintiff and the same declaration has been sought in the suit itself. Merely Ramratan has issued some notice to the petitioner, by itself will not give a cause to the petitioner for impleading him as party in the present suit. In the plaint petitioner himself admitted that H. K. Tolani is landlord of the plaintiff and the same declaration has been sought in the suit itself. Merely Ramratan has issued some notice to the petitioner, by itself will not give a cause to the petitioner for impleading him as party in the present suit. It is not the case of the petitioner that Ramratan is the landlord of the petitioner and is necessary party in the case. Merely Ramratan who has no concern as per the plaintiffs averment in the suit property even if has issued notices will not be a ground to implead Ramratan as defendant in the case. This is not an inter-pleader suit seeking declaration of the petitioner vis-a-vis some persons but in this case the petitioners suit is for declaration and for restraining the respondent H. K. Tholani from forcible dispossession. In the circumstances the Trial Court has rightly held that for the complete adjudication of the suit presence of Ramratan is not necessary nor he is necessary party in the case. So far as judgment relied on by the petitioner in the case of Kamtaprasad v. Smt. Vidyabai (supra), in Paras 11 and 13 it is held that it is the discretion of the Court to implead any of the party who is interested in the case and ultimate decree which may be passed will affect his right but from the perusal of the pleadings in the present case presence of Ramratan is neither necessary nor he is interested party in the present suit nor petitioner is admitting him as of his landlord. If Ramratan files any suit after issuance of the notices (Annexure P-5), petitioner will be free to contest the aforesaid suit on the available grounds. ( 6. ) I do not find any merit in the present petition, consequently it is dismissed, no order with to costs.