JUDGMENT :

R.N. Misra, A.C.J.

1. This application u/s 115, CPC calls in question the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 8-2-1978 refusing the allow an amendment prayed for by some of the Defendants who have been transposed as Plaintiffs.

2. Sana Mukta Baraduni as sole Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1973 for partition of the disputed properties. In the pleading it was admitted that Defendant No. I had been adopted by the co-widows of Krushna Barad and there existed a document of adoption. The present Petitioners were defenda n ts 6(a) to 6(g). In their written statement they had denied the adoption. During the pendency of the suit the sole Plaintiff died and Defendants 6(a) to 6(g) as heirs of the original Plaintiff were substituted and transposed. On 10-12.1975 a memorandum was filed by the Plaintiff's advocate to the effect that the Plaintiff was dead and time was taken for substitution. On 23-2-1976 Defendants 6 (a) to 6(g) filed a petition purported to be under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for transposing them as Plaintiffs. The order dated 18-3-1976 reads thus:

Petition under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 and Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by Petitioners is put up. H