JUDGMENT This is a Civil Revision against the impugned order dt. 10.4.2002 by Civil Judge Class II Gwalior whereby an application by the petitioner claiming herself to be a joint tenant in the suit premises with her son in capacity of co-heir of her deceased husband has been dismissed. It is claimed that statutory tenant has a heritable interest in the premises. Damdilal v. Parasram ( AIR 1976 SC 2229 = 1976 MPLJ 526 = 1976 JLJ 655). Gyandevi v. Jeevankumar ( AIR 1985 SC 796 = 1985 MPRCJ 191). It is claimed that thereby the petitioner in capacity of co-heir has become a co-tenant in the suit premises. Certainly, a civil suit for eviction or quit notice can be competent against inclusion of the joint or co-tenant also. Shambhudayal v. Suleman ( 1978 MPLJ 541 = 1978 JLJ 398 ). Kanhaiyalal v. Shriram Singh ( 1991 JLJ 119 ). It is claimed that a decree against a joint tenant would be binding on other tenants also. Thus, joint tenant is a proper party in the civil suit though he may not be a necessary party for effective decision of the civil suit. Certainly, the plaintiff is the dominus litus and has a choice to choose his opponents against whom he is free to file a civil suit. It is claimed that this power is also not unfettered. When a third party applies to be made a party on the ground that it is either a necessary or a proper party, different considerations would arise and in such a case interest of the applicant have to be kept in view and matter cannot be left to the choice of the plaintiff. Ramjanki Raj Mandir v. Haridas ( 1975 JLJ 381 ). Whatever may be merits of the case, newly added proviso to the amended S. 115 of the CPC does not allow revision of the impugned order Even if the order is reversed and petitioner is impleaded as a party neither suit nor any proceedings are going to be finally disposed off thereby. Thus revision is not competent and is dismissed.