A person can only be added as a party to a suit if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

V. P. Gupta J.— Aggrieved from the order dated 7-6-1980 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, the petitioner / plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff (now petitioner) filed a suit on 27-10-1975, in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, for a decree of declaration to the effect that he had perfected his title as an owner of the disputed land (described in the plaint) by adverse possession or in the alternative for declaration that he was entitled to the benefit of rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954. Only State of Himachal Pradesh (now respondent No. 4 was a defendant and the suit was contested by the State deying the plaintiffs claim.

3. Issues in the case were framed on 26-12-1977 and five witnesses of the plaintiff were also recorded. On 24-10-1979, the plaintiff was allowed last opportunity to produce his remaining evidence, and the case was adjourned to 26424979.

4. On 1742-1979, Roop Singh (now respondent No. 1) filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying that he along- with his brothers Mani Singh and Kashmir Singh (now respondents 2 and 3) be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit or be allowed to participate in the proceedings. This application was contested by the petitioner but the learned Senior Sub-Judge vide his order dated 7-6-1980 allowed this application.

5. Shri M.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff) contended that the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge is not sustainable in law and should be set aside. It was contenhed that the learned Senior Sub-Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and the order is without jurisdiction.

6. Shri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, contended that the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge is justified in the circumstances of the cases. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments in Razia Begum v. Sahcbeadi Anwar Begum and others A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 886 P. R. Nallathambi Goundan v. Vijaya Raghavan and others A. I. R. 1973 Mad. 25 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sohan Singh and another A. I. R. 1955 H. P. 43.

7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. Order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. reads as follows : "R.

10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. (1) 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 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. Where defendant added, plaint to be amended. In the present case the allegations in the application of Roop Singh respondent No. 1) are that Besar Singh was his father and petitioner (Dalip Singh), and respondents nos. 2 and 3 (Mani Singh and Kashmir Singh) are his brothers. Besar Singh died in the year 1959 and all his four sons, i.e. the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3, constituted a hindu coparcenary with Besar Singh. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of his brother also, who constituted hindu coparcenary. As the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have now become strained, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is denying the title of the petitioner and respondents nos. 2 and 3, On these grounds respondent No. 1 prayed that he be impleaded as a party alongwith his brothers (respondents 2 and 3). The petitioner