The court has the discretion to implead necessary parties and condone delay in filing the application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, respectively, provided the mistake in not impleading them was bona fide and there was sufficient cause for the delay.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. These two writ applications, involving common questions of law and fact, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ applications the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of an order, dated 30-12-1981 passed by Assistant settlement Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent NQ.2), as contained in Annexure 1 to these writ applications.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner claims himself to be entitled to the land in question by reason of two sale deeds, dated 3-2-1973 allegedly executed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent No.6 in C. W. J. C. No.3918 of 1982 and respondent no.3 in C. W. J. C. No.3920 of 1982. According to the petitioner he had come in peaceful cultivating possession of the aforesaid purchased land. The petitioner had asserted that after final publication of the record-of-rights, he came to learn that the land in question were recorded in the name of respondent Nos.3 to 20 in each case as raiyat as also in the names of resondent Nos.21 to 24 as under raiyats in C. W. J. C. No.3920 of 1982. According to the petitioner he was not aware of the survey proceeding as he purchased the said land at the initial stage of the survey operation and, as such, could not file any objection as he was not made a party in the objection petition. The petitioner, having come to learn of the final publication of the Khatian, filed an application before the assissant Settlement Officer at Revenue Court, Bhagalpur (respondent No.2), purported to be under Sec.106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the said proceedings which was initiated on the said objection petition filed by the petitioner, the respodent Nos.3 to 7 appeared and filed their respective written statements, inter alia, contending therein that some of the respondents had already died before institution of the said suit. The petitioner having come to learn of the said fact filed an application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives in place of the deceased respondents Nos.8 to 20. The contesting respondents filed rejoinder to the said application for amendment wherein they prayed for dismissal of the said suit on the ground that the said purported substitution petition was filed at a belated stage. By the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1 to these writ applications, the respondent No.2 has rejected the said application filed on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the said suit.

4. In these cases, counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents as also on behalf of the respondent No.2. In the said counter-affidavits the respondents contended that the impugned order having been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Sec.106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, a revision petition was maintainable as against the said order under Sec.108 thereof as also appeals could have been filed against the said order in terms of Sec.109-A thereof. The contesting respondents have further asserted that the vendors of the petitioner had no right to sell the interest of his co-shares and on that ground the said purported deeds of sale were void ab initio. It was further pointed out that the petitioner filed the said application for amendment of plaint after six years of the filing of the suit and in view of the fact that a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff is maintainable only against the entire body of the landlords and as such in absence of all the co-sharers, the same was not maintainable. The said respondents further pointed out that in view of the admitted position that at the time of the filing of the said suit the original respondent Nos.8 to 20 were dead, the said suit could not have proceeded in accordance with law.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a very short question. The learned counsel submitted that in terms