A party cannot be impleaded as a party-plaintiff or a party-defendant in a suit if it would lead to inter-se conflicts amongst the plaintiffs or enlarge the scope of the suit.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 4-9-1985, passed by Munsif, III Court, Chapra in Title Suit No.110 of 1973-79 whereby and whereunder he directed that the intervenor-opposite-party No.1 be added as a party to the suit.

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

3. One Dr. Dwarika Prasad being the original Landlord filed a suit for eviction against the defendants-opposite-parties. After his death his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place.

4. By a sale deed dated 28-4-1984 the said heirs of late Dr. Dwarika prasad transferred their right, title and interest in respect of the land in suit in favour of the opposite-party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.9,000. The petitioners also purchased the right, title and interest in respect of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.30,000 from the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika prasad by a registered deed dated 21-8-1978. The petitioners further allegedly purchased a portion of the suit-premises by virtue of two sale deeds dated 10-11-1979 for a consideration of Rs.6,500 and Rs.6,000 respectively from the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad.

5. The petitioners were, thereafter impleaded as plaintiffs in Title Suit no.110 of 1973 in view of the alleged devolution of interest of the original plaintiifs in terms of Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been asserted by the petitioners that the defence of the tenant who was originally the sold defendant in the suit (opposite-party No.2 herein)was struck off in terms of Sec.11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1947.

6. The opposite-party No.1 after his aforementioned purported purchase of a portion of the suit premises by the aforementioned sale deed dated 28-4-1984 filed an application for being impleaded as a party in terms of Order I, Rule 10 (2)of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order dated 4-9-1985 the learned court below has allowed the said prayer.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case, the opposite-party No.1 could not have impleaded as a party-plaintiff as thereby there would occur inter-se conflicts amongst the plaintiffs. In this connection he has relied upon a decision of Ram Gopal Sah V/s. Dhirendra Nath and others, reported in AIR 1981 Pat 288.

8. Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, on the other hand, submitted that by the impugned order, the opposite-party No.1 has not been impleaded as a plaintiff but has merely impleaded as a party to the suit and as such the aforementioned decision has no application. According to the learned Counsel the opposite-party No.1 may be impleaded as a party-defendent.

9. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

10. From the records of the case it is evident that the petitioners were substituted in place of the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad as plaintiifs in the suit and thereafter the opposite-party No.1 was sought to be added as a party in terras of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the impugned order.

11. The question is as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the petitioners and the tenant, namely, Ram Bhagat sah or not and or as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a decree for eviction as against the said defendants were the only issues required to be decided in the suit.

12. The opposity-party No. I by filing an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. at a much later stage could not have questioned either directly or indirectly the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the learned court below whereby and whereunder the petitioners were substituted in place of the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad.

13. The opposite-party No.1 by reason of his alleged purchase by virtue of the purported deed of sale dated 28-4-1984 could have got himself substituted in place of