Tarun Agarwala, J.:- Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the revi­sionist and Mr. Anil Sharma, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Dinesh Ghaturi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. l & 2. 2. Inspite of a specific order to serve respondent nos.3 & 4, no steps have been taken by the revisionist to serve the respondent nos.3 & 4 by registered post. It transpires that respondent nos.3 & 4 filed an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against re­spondent nos.1 & 2, namely, the temple and its Mahant seeking leave to file a suit. It is alleged that permission was granted by the court below and the application was subsequently converted into a suit. It has also been alleged that an injunction order was also passed by the court be­low restraining the respondent nos.1 & 2 from alienating the property in question. 3. During the "pendency of the proceedings. the revisionist Rakesh filed an application 12-C under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. contending that he is a frequent visitor of the temple in question and he has personal information with re­gard to the misappropriation of the prop­erty in question at the hands of its Mahant and, consequently, prayed that he should be impleaded as a plaintiff so that he could bring necessary evidence before the court to indicate that the Mahant of the temple is misappropriating the prop­erty in question. This application was opposed by the defendant nos.1 & 2. The court below, after considering the matter, rejected the application 12-C and held that the revisionist Rakesh was not a necessary party, and was not required to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. The court below held that the revisionist may appear as a wit­ness and provide all the necessary infor­mation and evidence against the temple and its Mahant. 4. The revisionist, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision under Sec­tion 115 of the C.P.C. 5. The learned senior counsel for the revisionist submitted that the suit was filed under Section 92 of the C.P.C., which proceedings are of a representative char­acter on behalf of the public at large and, consequently, any person having an in­terest in the property in question can ap­ply for impleadment. The learned senior counsel for the revisionist submitted that the suit was filed under Section 92 of the C.P.C., which proceedings are of a representative char­acter on behalf of the public at large and, consequently, any person having an in­terest in the property in question can ap­ply for impleadment. The learned senior counsel submitted that the revisionist, be­ing a regular worshiper and visitor of the temple, has personal information about the misappropriation committed by the Mahant of the temple and, consequently, being an interested person, it was appro­priate for the court to implead the revi­sionist as a necessary party, namely, as a plaintiff. 6. Having heard the learned coun­sel for the revisionist and respondent nos.1 & 2, the court finds that the sub­mission cannot be held to be tenable in the eyes of law. The plaintiff, namely, the respondent nos.3 & 4 are the dominus litus and have a right to choose its oppo­nent. The revisionist does not have any right to file an application alleging that he should be impleaded as a necessary party, especially, as a plaintiff. If the suit does not implead necessary parties, the suit will fail and the court below will pass an appropriate order. If the applicant con­siders the matter to be one of public im­portance, it is open to him to file a sepa­rate application under Section 92 of the C.P.C. and then, move an application to join two applications to be heard and considered together. But the revisionist could not be permitted to move an ap­plication to implead himself as the plaintiff. 7. Even otherwise, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. provides that a person may be joined as a plaintiff or as a de­fendant only where the person before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adju­dicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. There is nothing on the record, by way of any evidence or prima facie evidence to indicate that the revisionist's presence is necessary, which would enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Merely by making an allegation that the revisionist is a worshiper of the temple and has personal knowledge of the mis­deeds being made by the Mahant does not make the revisionist an interested party, far less a necessary party. Merely by making an allegation that the revisionist is a worshiper of the temple and has personal knowledge of the mis­deeds being made by the Mahant does not make the revisionist an interested party, far less a necessary party. It ap­pears that the revisionist is a busy body, poking his nose in someone else's affair without any rhyme or reasons. The court is of the opinion that the order passed by the court below rejecting the application does not suffer from any error of law. The civil revision fails and is dismissed summarily.