Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The writ petition arises out of a SCC Suit filed by the petitioner for arrears of rent, mesne profits and eviction of the tenant from a shop.

3. The said suit was filed by one Het Ram Sharma, who died during the pendency of the suit. He was survived by three sons.

4. Vide order dated 19.05.2009, one of his son namely Ghanshyam was substituted in place of the plaintiff on the basis of a will dated 26.06.2008 in his favour. The petitioner, who is another son, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 seeking impleadment in the suit on the ground that the property in question was ancestral property. This application under Order 1, Rule 10 was rejected vide order dated 30.02.2012.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision which has also been dismissed on 10.12.2015 and thereafter this writ petition challenging the orders dated 30.04.2012 and 10.12.2015.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is one of the son's of Late Het Ram Sharma, the original plaintiff and therefore he was entitled to be substituted on his death which was not done. He is therefore