G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order passed by the learned District judge, East Godavari District in I. A. No. 1754 of 2004 in O. S. No. 86 of 2003, dt. 13-9-2004. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the third party. He filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil procedure Code seeking to implead himself as 3rd defendant in the suit. Suit O. S. No. 86 of 2003 was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein against the respondents No. 5 and 6 and sought for mining lease to exploit the plaint schedule property for the purpose of extracting granites slabs. As there was dispute between the plaintiff and the mines department, they filed a suit in O. S. No. 86 of 2003 seeking declaration that the refusal of the defendants to grant licence in favour of the 4th plaintiff to excavate the land as illegal and sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant lease, licence or permit in favour of 4th plaintiff to exploit the plaint a and b schedule property for a period of five years. In the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment, it is stated that he is entitled for 1/5th share in the property and therefore, he was necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit proceedings. The application was heard by the learned District judge. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner has interest in the property. But, however, the issue relating to the title, the petitioner is already prosecuting the matter in O. S. No. 61 of 1999 against the defendants and others. The learned District judge found that he is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and accordingly dismissed the petition by an order dated: 13-9-2004. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner mrs. C. Sindhu Kumari submits that the order of the learned Judge is wholly illegal and contrary to law. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner mrs. C. Sindhu Kumari submits that the order of the learned Judge is wholly illegal and contrary to law. She submits that he being the legal heir of late Ramaswamy, he is entitled for 1/5th share and when that property was sought to be exploited by the plaintiffs after obtaining the lease from the mines and Geology Department, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no direct interest and therefore, the learned Judge has not properly appreciated this aspect and erroneously dismissed the petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. O. Manohar Reddy submits that the Order passed by the learned Judge is quite legal and valid and he submits that though the petitioner has interest in the property, yet, the matter does not relate to the title to the property, but only declaratory suit seeking mandatory injunction to the government Officers to grant lease of the schedule land for the purpose of exploiting the granite slabs was filed and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be a proper or necessary party and his presence is not at all essential in the issue to be decided between the plaintiffs and the defendants. ( 4 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the Order passed by the learned district judge suffers from any judicial error or errors apparent on the face of the record. ( 5 ) AS per the details given in the Order by the learned Judge one Mr. Behri ramaswamy had six sons namely Dalaiah, ramulu, Apparao, Bhageswararao, simhachalam and Appalaswamy. However, dalaiah died and his interest was being represented by his son Nageshwar Rao, who is the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Appalaswamy relinquished his right in the property by taking 80 cents of land in the property from his father ramaswamy and therefore, the remaining 5 sons entitled to share the estate of ramaswamy. Petitioner being the only son of Dalaiah succeeded to the share of dalaiah to the extent of 1/5th share. It is the case of the petitioner that Appalaswamy relinquished his right in the property by taking 80 cents of land in the property from his father ramaswamy and therefore, the remaining 5 sons entitled to share the estate of ramaswamy. Petitioner being the only son of Dalaiah succeeded to the share of dalaiah to the extent of 1/5th share. It is his case that he laid suit in O. S. No. 61 of 99 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, rajahmundry against the heirs of his junior paternal uncles Ramulu, Apparao, bhageswararao and Simhachalam and against the surviving junior paternal uncle appalaswamy to declare that he is entitled for 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs and the defendants (sic. plaintiffs) in the suit are defendants in O. S. No. 61 of 1999. ( 6 ) IN response to the averments made by the petitioner in the counter filed by the contesting respondents, it is stated that dalaiah and his immediate brother Ramulu separated from their father Ramaswamy prior to 1968 and thus they had no right in the estate of Ramaswamy. As regards appalaswamy, there was no dispute with regard to his relinquishment of his share and thus, the petitioner had nothing to do with the property. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the property from the heirs of Bhageswararao and Simhachalam and that they sold the b schedule property to the 4th plaintiff which transaction is hit by Section 54 of Transfer of property Act. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner filed a comprehensive suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1999, which is pending adjudication and the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the officials of Mines and Geology department seeking mandatory injunction to grant lease for extracting the granite slabs. In such scenario can it be said that the petitioner has a right to implead himself as defendant. If so, the limitations under order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi anwar Begum, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:"the question of addition of parties under R. 10 of 0. If so, the limitations under order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi anwar Begum, wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:"the question of addition of parties under R. 10 of 0. 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in S. 115 of the Code. In a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of the litigation. Where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the specific Relief Act. In case covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission. The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and in view of that consideration, the rule of present interest, as evolved by case law relating to disputes about p operty, does not apply with full force; and the rule laid down in S. 43 of the Specific relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another. " ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme court reported in Ramesh Hirachand kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay, where in the Supreme court while referring to the decision in Razia begum s case (1st cited supra) again considered the scope of Order of 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and observed thus:"the object of Rule 10 (2) of Order 1 is not to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has though of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. A clear distinction has been drawn between suits relating to property and those in which the subject matter of litigation is a declaration as regards status or legal character. In the former category, the rule of present interest as distinguished from the commercial interest is required to be shown before a person may be added as a party. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i. e. he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. The rule does not contemplate joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. The rule does not contemplate joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that a comprehensive suit has already been filed which is pending in O. S. No. 61 of 1999, but in a later suit filed by the respondents herein, the petitioner intends to be impleaded as party defendant. But, it has to be noted that the suit is not in respect of the property, but it is declaratory in nature directing the Mines and Geology Department to grant lease or licence for extraction of mines. His presence before the Court would not be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. Order 1 Rule 10 Civil procedure Code is extracted below:"rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the court thinks just: (2) Court may strike out or add parties.- the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.-Where a defendant is added, the plaint, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the [indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Sec. 22], the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. " ( 11 ) A party who has an interest in the schedule property is entitled to be impieaded. But, in the instant case, the suit does not relate to the property, but it relates to a right for seeking licence from the Mines and Geology Department. In the said suit, the presence of the petitioner is not at all necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the suit. Since the petitioner has already filed comprehensive suit in which respondents no. 1 to 6 are already parties, the learned judge found that he is not a necessary or proper party in the suit in O. S. No. 86 of 2003. Thus, i do not find any jurisdictiona! error or any error apparent on the face of the record. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by the lower Court sitting under Article 227 of constitution of India and accordingly the Civil revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.