1. This is a civil revision petition challenging order dated 23.9.2000 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Kota City (South) in Civil Suit No. 419/88 whereby application filed by petitioner (Ankur Sharma) under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected.

2. Undisputed facts are that Smt. Darshan Bali (plaintiff respondent No. 1) instituted a civil Suit for eviction of a shop against Dinanath Sharma (father of the present petitioner) (defendant tenant). Dinanath expired on 26.3.87 during the pendency of suit, therefore, he was substituted by his widow Sushila Sharma (respondent No. 2) by impleading her as defendant tenant. On 29.11.99 Ankur Sharma (petitioner) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that on attaining his age of 18 years it came to his notice that he has not been impleaded as party to the eviction suit of a shop in which his father Dinanath was tenant of landlord Smt. Darshan Bali, whereas only his mother Sushila Devi was substituted by impleading her as defendant to the suit after death of his father as against other legal heirs left behind by his father.

3. In reply to the application the plaintiff respondent No. 1 contended that Ankur Sharma did