ORDER 1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution is invoked to assail the interlocutory order dated 30.1.2018 passed in C.S. No. 61A/17 by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior (M.P.) whereby an application under O. 1 rule 10 CPC preferred by petitioner herein in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent based on a claim of 1/11th share in the suit accommodation, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel relying upon the decision of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Swaroop Joshi v. Janki Prasad Kurele [ 2013(II) MPWN 57 ], submits that in a case attended with similar circumstances, this Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing an application under O. 1 rule 10 CPC. It is further submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking and also that non-impleadment of the petitioner would lead to grave prejudice as the petitioner is successor-in-title qua the suit accommodation. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is evident that the trial Court dismissed the application u/O 1 rule 10 CPC as the question of title raised in the application is irrelevant and inconsequential in a suit for eviction between landlord and tenant. 4.1 As regards reliance placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench in Vishnu Swaroop Joshi (supra), this Court has no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned single judge in the said case as the same is based on an earlier decision of this Court in Sukhram v. Sarju Bai and others, reported in 2005(2) MPHT 44 but a close scrutiny of para 8 of the said judgment in the said case of Vishnu Swaroop Joshi (supra), reveals that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation was the principal reason for allowing application under O. 1 rule 10 CPC 4.2 It is settled principle of law that limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised when the order impugned is an outcome of the exercise of discretionary power available to the trial Court. 4.3 The reason assigned by the trial Court herein for passing the impugned order is that the trial relates to eviction and recovery of rent where the title and ownership of the property is insignificant. As such the trial Court in the given facts and circumstances could have taken the impugned view, which may not be the most appropriate one in the given facts and circumstances but is a view possible to be taken in the available prima facie material on record and therefore even if in the strict sense the impugned order may be erroneous but the same has been passed by rightful exercise of jurisdiction vested in the trial Court and thus cannot be found fault with. 5. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and therefore the petition stands dismissed. R.K. Soni for petitioner.