1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 20.8.2007, whereby the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by present petitioner is rejected by Court below. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

2. It is stated by the petitioner that the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was mischievous in nature. The plaintiff is not the owner of the premises, indeed petitioner is the owner of the premises. The plaintiff contended before the Court below that he has purchased the land in question from Krishna Swaroop (petitioner), Vishnu Swaroop and Kailash Narayan on 30.4.1965. As per condition of the deed, amount has not been paid and therefore, plaintiff became the owner. Just after one day of execution of the deed, a rent note was prepared and as per rent note, one of the vendor Kailash Narayan became the tenant. By drawing attention of this Court on rent note it is stated that it is forged document because the rent note contains the date of 1.5.1965, whereas stamps were purchased on 6.5.1965, rent note is filed as Annexure-P/4. Plaintiff filed the suit stating that he is the owner of the premises and defendant No.1 is tenant and defendant No.2 is sub-tenant, whereas as per the petitioner, petitioner and defendant No.1 are the real owners of the premises. On the basis of aforesaid stand, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment Annexure-P/5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed his reply. The Court below rejected the said application by impugned order, which is called in question in the present petition.

3. Shri Pratip Visoriya learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the order and submits that Court below has erred in rejecting the said application and petitioner is a necessary party.

4. Per contra, Shri N.K. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order and submits that there is no infirmity in the order which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to implead anybody without any justifiable reason.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In the impugned order, the Court below opined that the suit is filed by the petitioner for eviction and recovery of rent. Plaintiff has stated that he had purchased the property from defendant No.1 and from proposed party/present petitioner by registered sale deed dated 30.4.1965. By placing reliance on the contents of sale deed dated 30.4.1965 it is held by the Court below that it makes it clear that within four years (up to 3.4.1969), sale consideration was required to be paid to the plaintiff and if that is done, the plaintiff can get property from defendant No.1 and present petitioner. The Court below further opined that present petitioner and defendant No.1 have not filed any document, which shows that they have any document to establish their stand and therefore, prima facie sale is complete. The suit is only for eviction and recovery of rent and therefore, the question of title is not required to be gone into. The present petitioner can file a separate petition in accordance with law and in the present suit, he is not a necessary party. On the basis of these reasons, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.

7. Shri N.K. Gupta relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Gupta v. Kishorilal delivered in CR No. 114/1999 (G), dated 17.2.1999 [reported in 1999 (II) MPWN 49]. He also relied on 1999 (I) MPWN 14 in this regard to submit that in a suit for eviction, third party is neither necessary nor proper party and such party cannot be allowed to join the proceedings. In the present case, the Court below has given a specific finding that suit is regarding eviction and recovery of rent. Naturally, the question of title cannot be decided in the said suit. In 1972 JLJ 126 (Baijnath v. State of M