( 1 ) ONE Harinandan is said to have mortgaged certain property in favour of one Vishwanath in the year 1907. Twenty one persons claiming to be heirs of the mortgagor Harinandan filed a suit (giving rise to these proceedings) for redemption of the mortgage, Some of the defendants are sued as heirs of the mortgagee Vishwanath, whale others are transferees from them. The defendants denied the mortgage and claimed right and title in the suit property independent of Vishwanath. Vasudeo, one of the original plaintiffs, died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives applied for substitution beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The defendants objected to the substitution but their objection was turned down. However, by order dated 186-t969, the trial Court directed that certain plaintiffs, who are non-applicants Nos. 4 to 14 in this revision, have been unnecessarily joined as plaintiffs. Since they claimed no interest in the suit property, their names were directed to be deleted and the suit proceeded in their absence. This order dated 18-6-1969 deleting the names of those plaintiffs was not challenged then either by appeal at by revision. The suit ended in partial success of the plaintiffs and, therefore, both the parties preferred separate appeals before the District Judge against the decree passed in that suit. In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, all those persons whose names were deleted as plaintiffs by the trial Court's order, dated 18-6-1969, were also joined as appellants. No prayer was made for permission to file appeal on their behalf. Besides attacking the correctness of the decree partly dismissing the claim, they also challenged the correctness of fee trial Court's order, dated 18-6-1969, deleting their names as plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE defendants objected to the joinder of those plaintiffs (non-applicants 4 to 14) as appellants principally on the ground that the order dated 18-6-1969 was a decree and since it was then not challenged, it could not now be challenged after the lapse of the requisite period of limitation. This objection was upheld and by order, dated 1-8-1973, the names of those appellants were ordered to be removed from the array of the appellants. This order was again not challenged by any proceeding before this Court. Instead, the appellants-plaintiffs in their appeal filed an application on 2-8-1973 seeking permission to amend the plaint trying to explain how the other persons, whose names were deleted, had interest in the suit property. By yet another application, the names of the other plaintiffs (non-applicants 4 to 14) were sought to ba added as appellants. Permission was also sought to file the appeal by them and it was added that the appeal already filed be treated on their behalf also. It was also alleged that the proceedings taken up to that stage by them were under the advice of the counsel, Lal Praduman Singh, a very senior Advocate of Rewa. No specific order was passed on these applications, but the appeal itself was decided on 11-12-1977. The decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was remanded for retrial directing the joinder of the other persons (nonapplicants 4 to 14) as plaintiffs. A revision (Civil Revision No. 79 of 1974) was preferred against that remand order. This Court vide order, dated 3-9-1976, passed in that revision set aside the remand order and directed the lower appellate Court to first decide the application, dated 2-8-1973. The parties were then heard and by the impugned order the District Judge, Rewa, allowed these applications as a result of which the non-applicants 4 to 14 have also been treated as appellants before the lower appellate Court. The plaint also stands amended. This revision is directed against this order of the District Judge. ( 3 ) THE first contention raised by Shri Ramayan Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, is that the order of the trial Court directing deletion of the names of the non-a