Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-1-1975 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Sonkatch, in C. S. No. 25-A of 1973, whereby the application made by the plaintiff-applicant under Order 1, rule 10 CPC to add the names of two persons Jagannath and Gauribai in place of their deceased father Nandram, who was made defendant No. 9 in the suit, was rejected. 2. Held : The trial Court relying on the decisions in Rampratap Brijmohandas v. Gourishankar Kashiram, AIR 1924 Bombay 109, Badrilal v. Shantilal, 1961 JLJ 559, Bai Pani Vankar v. Madhabhai Galabbhai, AIR 1953 Bombay 356, Hindustan General Insurance Society v. Kedarnarayan, AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 76 and Noorbhoy Alibhoy Halal v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Sind 92, dismissed the application. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel from both the sides and perused the record. It may be pointed out that the trial Court in the impugned order did not at all discuss the above decisions while placing reliance on them. As a matter of fact they are all distinguishable on facts. These were the cases in which suit or appeal was filed by or against a dead person and, therefore, the High Courts have held that the suit or appeal was a nullity. In the instant case there are more than one defendant. The applicant in the suit had not claimed any relief against Nandram who was made as defendant No. 9. The suit was for declaration of title with respect to a portion of the land which was alleged to have been wrongfully occupied by non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4. However, the entire land having been recorded jointly in the names of various persons including deceased Nandram, he was also made a proforma defendant. The other brother of Nandram by name Balwant is already on record as defendant No.10. The applicant has alleged that at the time of institution of the suit she did not know that Nandram was dead and, therefore, his name was wrongly recorded. The fact as regards the death of Nandram having known to the applicant after the institution of the suit she had prayed to add the names of Jagannath and Gauribai in the array of defendants in place of deceased Nandram, defendant No.9. The fact as regards the death of Nandram having known to the applicant after the institution of the suit she had prayed to add the names of Jagannath and Gauribai in the array of defendants in place of deceased Nandram, defendant No.9. It is thus clear that the suit was not instituted against a sole defendant who was dead and hence it was not a nullity. The provisions of Order 1, rule 10 CPC are clearly applicable to the instant case under which the name of Nandram could be deleted and the names of Jagannath and Gauribai could be added. It is not disputed that on the date of the application under Order 1, rule 10 CPC the suit against Jagannath and Gauribai sought to be impleaded as parties, was not barred by time. It appears that the trial Court came under misconception and rejected the application ignoring the provisions contained in Order 1, R.10 CPC, and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. AIR 1924 Bom. 109, 1961 JLJ 559, AIR 1953 Bom. 356 , AIR 1956 MB 76 and AIR 1937 Sind. 92, distinguished. Revision allowed.