J.G. Chitre, J.

1. The petitioners have been aggrieved on account of rejection of the application presented by them in view of provisions of O.1 R.10 CPC. The order which is under challenge revolves around a typical circumstance of facts involved around the controversy in context with an ancestral house of which three brothers happen to be the owners. The said house was to be divided between three brothers, therefore, on account of family adjustment one brother namely Rajmal was satisfied by remaining two brothers by giving him a different property. The ancestral house was left for being partitioned amongst remaining brothers. Both the brothers were in physical possession of two separable portions of the house initially and were sharing common passage commonly as joint owners. It appears from the facts mentioned in the argument that some part of said property was transferred by opp. 1, Smt. Vinita during the pendency of the suit, and, therefore, the parties are now at contest before the trial court. O.1. R.10 provides--

Sub. R. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in disputes so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the court thinks just.

Sub. R. (2) provides-The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

Sub. R. 3 provides that no person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

Sub. R. 4 provides where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the, plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the court thinks fit, on the original defendant.

Sub. R. 5 provides that subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), S.22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.

2. The transactions are complicated and the allegations made against each other are also touching the core of the controversy in issue. Therefore, this petition will have to be decided guardedly so as to see that anything observed here would not affect rights of contensting parties in the trial court.

3. It is averred that Opp. no. 1. Smt. Vinita d/o Manikchandji Rudia had sold the frontal portion of the said building to opp. 2. 3, 4, 5 prior to the filing of the suit. The suit has been filed on 23.7.98. Said Vinita was daughter-in-law of Samrathmal and she had married with Ashok Kumar s/o Samrathmal. Ku. Megha happens to be daughter begotten during the existence of wed lock between Vinita and Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar had died in an accident and thereafter Opp. 1 Vinita has remarried. It is averred by the parties, that now Vinita does not have any interest in the said property. Petitioners want to add opponents 6, 7, 8, 9 as parties in the said suit.

4. While dealing with a revision petition in view of provisions of S.115 of CPC, the courts has to keep it in mind that though the order under challenge may not be suitable to the taste of the higher court, it needs to be maintained if the trial court