JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, A.C.J. 1. This application u/s 115, CPC calls in question the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 8-2-1978 refusing the allow an amendment prayed for by some of the Defendants who have been transposed as Plaintiffs. 2. Sana Mukta Baraduni as sole Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1973 for partition of the disputed properties. In the pleading it was admitted that Defendant No. I had been adopted by the co-widows of Krushna Barad and there existed a document of adoption. The present Petitioners were defenda n ts 6(a) to 6(g). In their written statement they had denied the adoption. During the pendency of the suit the sole Plaintiff died and Defendants 6(a) to 6(g) as heirs of the original Plaintiff were substituted and transposed. On 10-12.1975 a memorandum was filed by the Plaintiff's advocate to the effect that the Plaintiff was dead and time was taken for substitution. On 23-2-1976 Defendants 6 (a) to 6(g) filed a petition purported to be under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for transposing them as Plaintiffs. The order dated 18-3-1976 reads thus: Petition under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 and Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by Petitioners is put up. Heard.... On 22-3-1976 the learned Subordinate Judge directed issue of notice to show cause as to why Defendants 6(a) to 6(g) may not be substituted upon transposition in place of the original Plaintiff. On 18-9-1976 the learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order: Petitioner files hazira. O.P. No. 1 has not filed his counter. The petition under Order 22, Rule 4 and Section 151 and under Order I, Rule 10, CPC is put up. Heard. As there is no objection, it is allowed. Opposite parties 6(a) to 6(g) are to be transposed as Petitioners, being deleted from the category of the opposite parties. The original Petitioner having died be expunged from the record. Office to carry out the same in the cause title.... Subsequently an application for amendment of the original plant was filed and the transposed Defendants asked for leave to amend the original plaint by deleting the admission of adoption and wanted to raise an issue over the question of adoption by disputing it. The Trial Court having refused to allow the amendment the present revision application has been filed. 3. Subsequently an application for amendment of the original plant was filed and the transposed Defendants asked for leave to amend the original plaint by deleting the admission of adoption and wanted to raise an issue over the question of adoption by disputing it. The Trial Court having refused to allow the amendment the present revision application has been filed. 3. This seems to be a case where there has been substitution of Defendants 6(a) to 6(g) in place of the original Plaintiff as legal heirs and thereafter there has been transposition. I am prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Basu that where it is a case of plain transposition the pleading already raised before the Court can be carried by the party. Where there is a substitution ordinarily the substituted person steps into the shoes of the predecessor in interest and steps and action taken by the predecessor are binding on the heir. The heir is not entitled to give a go-by to the pleading and raise new grounds contrary to the original pleading by the predecessor-in-interest. 4. As already pointed out, Plaintiff Mukta had admitted the adoption of Defendant No. 1 while the transposed Defendants in their written statement had denied it. Since the newly added parties are to carry the litigation of the Plaintiff they cannot change the pleadings by substituting an admission by a denial. In case they are of the view that their pleadings are to be accepted and adjudicated upon, the appropriate way is to allow the suit to be withdrawn and they should come to the Court with their own pleadings for determination of the dispute. 5. On behalf of the Petitioners reliance was placed on a decision of the Patna High Court in Musammat Hifsa Khatoon and Others Vs. Mohammad Salimar Rahman and Others some observations of this Court in Satyanarayan Patnaik v. Golak Bihari Das 36 (1970) C.L.T. 77, and a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram AIR 1971 S.C. 74. Reliance was also placed on a recent decision of the Patna High Court in Thakur Chaudhry and Others Vs. Brahmdeo Chaudhry and Others. I have examined the facts of each of these cases and I find that none does really throw any light on the exact point in issue. Reliance was also placed on a recent decision of the Patna High Court in Thakur Chaudhry and Others Vs. Brahmdeo Chaudhry and Others. I have examined the facts of each of these cases and I find that none does really throw any light on the exact point in issue. I am inclined to take the view that the substituted legal representatives are not entitled to give a somersault to the pleadings of their predecessor and therefore the amendment has been rightly rejected. I do not see any point in this revision application and the same is therefore dismissed. There would be no order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed