Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Bellary directing that the Government should be impleaded as a party to the suit. The reason given by him is, apart from the question whether the Government is a necessary party or not, that he considers it desirable that it should be a party to the suit. The question is, whether in the exercise of his discretion under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, the District Munsiff has gone wrong and it is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the decisions in Krishnayya v. The Bellary Municipal Council I.L.R. (1891) 15 Mad. 292 and Nathalal Ramdas v. The Nadiad Municipality I.L.R. (1922) 47 Bom. 306 as they only hold that in a suit where a claim to property is asserted against the Municipality, the Government is not a necessary party. Whether the Government is a proper party or not, would depend on the facts of each case and no general rule can be laid down. This action relates to a vacant site and the plaintiff claims a declaration that he is the owner thereof and that the Municipality has no right to interfere with any use he may make of it. The main defence of the Municipality