JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned 1 order. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Section 151 CPC. 3. The whole case of the petitioner is that he has a right of way on the s is d in question and that the plaintiff had trespassed over the land, for which proceedings were initiated under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were in he was ordered to be dispossessed. Thereafter, he again committed trespass, then again proceedings were initiated against him under the Land Revenue Act, where under he was dispossessed and was also is prosecuted and sentenced to three month's imprisonment, which was upheld by the Collector vide order dated 23.6.94. Notwithstanding this, by concealing these facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and has obtained temporary injunction, and thus, the petitioner's right of way is obstructed. 4. Suffice it to say that the authorities who passed the orders of the plaintiff's dispossession being the Collector and Tehsildar are already parties defendants, therefore, it cannot firstly be presumed that the true facts about the aforesaid orders would not be brought to the notice of the learned trial court, and secondly the mere fact that the petitioner feels that he will be able to better conduct (defend) the litigation, that by itself does not confer any right on the petitioner to become a party to the litigation, as thereby he cannot be said to be necessary, or even a proper party. 5. Needless to observe that if the petitioner at all has any right of way, that stands on its own footing and is not dependent on the question as to whether the land belongs to the plaintiff or the defendants. 6. It is a different story that as noticed by the learned trial court, the petitioner's application for becoming a party in the revenue litigation has been dismissed by the Revenue Board vide order dated 18.9.98 setting aside the. order of the Settlement Officer dated 29.6.95. In these circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Revision Dismissed. *******