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.

ORDER :- The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioners/defendant No. 1 and the Comunidade of Sancoale, the defendant No. 2 for obtaining a declaration that the suit land belonging to them and other heirs of the late Joaquim Eleuterio Gomes of Pale, for a further declaration that the perpetual lease granted in respect of the suit land by the defendant No. 2, is null and void and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the possession by the plaintiffs of the suit land.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-

The father of the plaintiff No. 1, the late Joaquim Eleuterio Gomes of Pale, Velcao, acquired vast lands admeasuring about 1,50,975 sq. mts. partly by perpetual lease granted by the defendant No. 2 to him, partly by virtue of legalised usurpations and partly by prescription. This area was comprised, inter alia, of plot No. 23, which is the subject-matter of this suit. As one of the heirs of Joaquim, the plaintiffs are entitled jointly with the other heirs, to the suit land. The second defendant gave in perpetual lease some areas belonging to the defendants, but wrongfully included the suit land in that lease. The defendant No. 2 had no right to grant a perpetual lease to the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land which lawfully belonged to the plaintiffs and other heirs of Joaquim, if not for other title, at least by virtue of prescription.

3. The suit was initially valued at Rs. 55,693 for the purpose of jurisdiction and Rs. 2,000 for the purpose of court-fee. Later on by an amendment, the plaintiffs valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee as well as for jurisdiction at Rs. 2,000.

4. The defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the other heirs of Joaquim and that for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit had correctly been initially valued at Rs. 55,693 and the plaintiffs were later on wrongly allowed to change its value.

5. I will first dispose of the question of the alleged wrong valuation. I find no substance in this point. The plaintiffs are entitled to value their suit for the purpose of court-fee, at any amount they desire if the suit falls under S. 7 (4) (c) of the Court-fees Act, as the present suit does. The plaintiffs had initially contravened the provisions of S. 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Suits Valuation Act and were therefore compelled to amend the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction.

6. On the second point it is contended by the defendants that the suit land admittedly belonged also to the other heirs of Joaquim; that the title was created not only by a perpetual lease and legal usurpations, but also by prescription; that the suit was for the purpose of declaration of title, annulation of a lease in respect of the suit land and injunction against interference by the defendants with the suit land; and that therefore the other heirs of Joaquim have to be necessarily impleaded under the risk of the suit being dismissed.

7. Shri Sardessai, learned advocate for the plaintiffs, opposes this revision application on two grounds. The first one is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision application under S. 115, C.P.C. as the decision is not without jurisdiction, even if it is admitted that the decision is wrong. The second

one is that the order impugned in this revision application is correct because the parties sought to be added are not neceesary parties as no relief is claimed against them and the suit can be adjudicated without any prejudice to the parties which are sought to be added.

8. The impugned order appears to have been passed under O. 1, R. 10 (2), C.P.C. which reads as under:-

"O. 1, R. 10:- Court may strike out or add parties.- (2) 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