JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Merta whereby the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts necessary for deciding the present writ petition are that one Kaushalya Devi filed a suit for eviction against tenant Loonaram claiming herself to be landlord, having let out the shop to the tenant. The petitioner claiming himself to be an adopted son of late Shri Ramswaroop through his next friend filed an application under Order 1 Rule CPC to be impleaded as party in the said suit proceedings. 3. It was indicated in the said application dated 04.7.2015 that the applicant petitioner is adopted son of late Shri Ramswaroop and for which a separate suit for declaration has been filed which was said to be pending. 4. On the basis of these assertions, the petitioner has sought his impleadment in the subject suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff Kaushalya Devi. The learned trial court has dismissed said application filed by the petitioner, vide order impugned. 5. Mr. N.S. Khilleri, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.9.2016 submitted that the petitioner being an adopted son of late Shri Ramswaroop is a necessary party, in as much as, the property in question was not self acquired property of Smt. Kaushalya Devi and he being the son of Shri Ramswaroop has right to be impleaded as party. Mr. Khilleri apprehended that the plaintiff Smt. Kaushalya, after taking possession of the property in question, will dispose of or alienate the same, which would adversely affect his rights. 6. I have heard Mr. Khilleri, learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the material available on record. 7. The moot question to be gone into, in application is seeking impleadment is the nature of the case and relief claimed by the plaintiff. 8. Without commenting anything upon the fact as to whether the petitioner Deepak is an adopted son of Ramswaroop or not, even if it is assumed that he is the adopted son of Shri Ramswaroop, the petitioner cannot interject in the present suit for eviction filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi. 8. Without commenting anything upon the fact as to whether the petitioner Deepak is an adopted son of Ramswaroop or not, even if it is assumed that he is the adopted son of Shri Ramswaroop, the petitioner cannot interject in the present suit for eviction filed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi. In the suit for eviction filed by the landlord Kaushalya Devi, even natural son cannot be impleaded as party, as necessary party, land lord is pursuing the case. On account of rejection of petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC none of the legal rights of the petitioner have been affected. 9. The court below has passed a detailed and well considered order which call for no interference. 10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is therefore dismissed.