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 D/-30-12-81 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent 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 dt. 3-2-73 allegedly executed by the predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 6 in C.W.J.C. No. 3918 of 1982 and respondent 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 has asserted that after final publication of the record of rights, he came to learn that the land in question was recorded in the names of respondents 3 to 20 in each case as raiyat as also in the names of respondents 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 Assistant Settlement Officer at Revenue Court, Bhagalpur (respondent 2), purported to be under S.106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the said proceedings which was initiated on the said objection petition filed by the petitioner, the respondents 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 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 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 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 S.106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, a revision petition was maintainable as against the said order under S.108 thereof as also appeals could have been filed against the said order in terms of S.109A thereof. The contesting respondents have further asserted that the vendors of the petitioner had no right to sell the interest of his co-sharers 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 respondents 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 of O.1, R.10 of the Civil P.C., such an application was maintainable.