JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the constitution for quashing an order passed by the Additional District Collector of Balasore in revision, maintaining the order of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act Officer directing the eviction of some of the tenants from some lands on the ground that they failed to pay the rent due within the prescribed period. 2. The Orissa Tenants Relief Act proceeding was initiated on the application of the land lords and there were four joint applicants representing the consharer land lords and, viz. Gadadhar Biswal, Chakradhar Biswal, Nityananda Biswal and Maheswar Biswal. Maheswar Biswal actually gave evidence before the Orissa Tenants Relief Act Officer in support of his application for eviction of the tenants and he was also cross examined. His evidence was also taken into consideration by the learned Orissa Tenants Relief Act officer who ultimately held in favour of the landlords (including Maheswar) and directed the eviction of the tenants. 3. In this application under Article 226 the Petitioners have impleaded only three out of the four landlords, namely Gadadhar, Chakradhar, and Nityananda. No explanation has been given as to why Maheswar was not impleaded. On the other hand, having impleaded only the aforesaid three landlords the Petitioners in paragraph 7 of their writ petition wanted to rely very much on the fact that rent had been offered to them. This comment on their failure to examine themselves must in the circumstances of this case be held to be not bonafide because the judgment of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act officer clearly shows that the fourth landlord, viz. Maheswar examined himself and was also cross examined. The Petitioners were aware of the above order of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act officer and consequently must have known that Maheswar was examined as a witness. When in such circumstances, the Petitioners deliberately omitted to implead Maheswar as a party in this writ petition and wanted to make a point of the fact that the remaining three landlords did not examine themselves before the Orissa Tenants Relief Act officer it must be held that they have not come to this Court with clean hands, and this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot exercise its discretion in their favour. 4. 4. Apart from this, any order that may be passed by this Court in favour of the Petitioners will have no effect so far as Maheswar is concerned. The trial courts order for eviction has now become final. If the Petitioners succeed in this application, then so far as the remaining cosharer landlord?s interests are concerned the order for eviction will have to be set aside. There will thus be direct conflict between the order of this Court and the order of the trial court so far as the interest of Maheswar is concerned, On account of the omission to implead Maheswar this unfortunate result will follow. The parties have to blame themselves for this. A copy of the affidavit of Maheswar dated 6-12-1961 was actually received by the Advocate for the Petitioners on 12-12-1961 and even thereafter they took no steps to implead him as a party. 5. We would therefore uphold the preliminary objection raised by Mr. B. Mohapatra and decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution on the ground that the necessary parties have not been impleaded and any order that we may pass will be infructuous. 6. The petition is therefore rejected but without costs. Barman, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed