Short Note : It appears that a suit for eviction against the non-petitioners originally was filed by the present petitioner along with one Mainabai. During the pendendy of the suit it appears that Mainabai died and the present petitioner filed an application that she had executed a will in her favour and therefore she being the sole legal representative now is entitled to proceed with the suit. This application submitted by the petitioner was opposed and the learned Court below by the impugned order on the one hand allowed the application of the petitioner, but has also ordered that the daughters of Mainabai and the daughters of the petitioner all be joined as parties to the suit. Held : It is no doubt true that a plea about maintainability of the suit in absence of the daughters of Mainabai being joined as parties has already been raised and an issue to that effect has already been drawn. It could not be doubted that the learned Judge by the impugned order allowed the application filed by the petitioners. The order unfortunately is so worded which goes to indicate that the Court directed the petitioner to join these daughters as parties although it also allowed the application of the petitioner wherein she prayed that she be allowed to continue the suit as sole legal representative. In this view of the matter, therefore, it appears that the order directing the daughters of deceased Mainabai and others to be joined as parties is not justified. The Court below has committed material irregularity in passing that order. It is however true that it will be open to the defendant-non-petitioners to raise a contention about the validity of the will or the maintainability of the suit by the petitioner alone. These questions, however, can only be decided along with other issues during the trial of the suit. Revision allowed.