1. By this application some of the defendants have challenged the order of the court below for addition of an intervenor defendant in the following circumstances.

2. A title suit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 for restraining the other defendants including the Patna Municipal Corporation from demolishing a part of the house which is in his occupation as a monthly tenant. On the 28th November, 1975 an application was filed by Murli Manohar Jalan, opposite party no. 1 for his addition as a party defendant. Copy of this petition was served admittedly only on the plaintiffs and not on the contesting defendants. When this petition was taken up the plaintiff did not oppose the prayer for addition of Murli Manohar Jalan and the learned Subordinate Judge without assigning any other reason and on the sole ground that the plaintiffs did not oppose the prayer of opposite party no. 1, ordered for his addition as defendant no. 5 in the suit. In the order it has been, however, stated that the lawyers appearing for defendants nos. 1 and 2 were also heard. This fact has been controverted in paragraph 8 of the revision petition and it has been stated that the petition for addition o