JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mohanty, J. - Whether the legal representatives of one of the plaintiffs in a suit, can press into service Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC for being added as parties after rejection of their application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code is the small but vexed question that falls for determination in this revision.

2. The suit out of which this revision arises was one for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession and correction of record-of-rights. Plaintiff 1 is the son of plaintiff 2. On the death of plaintiff 2, his widow and two married daughters filed an application on 14-11-1985 for amendment of plaint and impletion as plaintiffs. The trial Court construed the application as one under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code, for substitution and disallowed the same on 3-3-1986 as not having been made within time, sine plaintiff 2 died on 6-6-1984. Then the widow died. Thereafter on 23-3-1987 the two daughters filed another application under Order 1, Rule 0 of the Code for being impleaded in the suit. The same has been rejected by order dated 3-7-1967 which is impugned in this revision.

3. Counsel for the peti