JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - In a case under Section 59/180/183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, an application was filed for transposition of defendant nos. 5 and 6 was co-plaintiffs. This application was allowed on 4-11-1977 by the S.D.O. Chali. Against that order, the defendant no. 1 Azmat Ali filed a revision. 2. The revision of Azmat Ali succeeded to the extent that the learned Additional Commissioner Allahabad on 23-10-1978 recommendation that the trial court's order be set aside. 3. The case under Sections 59/180/183 U.P. Tenancy Act had been brought only by one of the co-tenants. The other co-tenants were defendant nos. 5 and 6, who had been later on transposed as plaintiffs in the case. The suit had been filed on 30-4-1971 and the order of the transposition has been made on 4-11-1977. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that the amendment was time-barred and he relied on 1944 R.D. page 390. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the provisions of Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act override the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned S.D.O., was illegal because the amendment was time-barred. 4. Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act lays down that where there are two or more co-shares in any right, title or interest, all things required or permitted to be done by the possession of the same, shall be done by them conjointly unless they appointed an agent to act on behalf of all of them. The suit for ejectment of a trespasser has to be filed by all the co-shares in accordance with the provisions of Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Here in this case only one of the co-shares had filed the suit for ejectment impleading the other co-shares as defendant nos. 5 and 6. Later on it was thought that the defendants 5 and 6 should be transposed as plaintiff so as to remove the bar of Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This application was given after six years of the filing of the suit. The limitation for filing a suit for ejectment of a trespasser was two years under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This application was given after six years of the filing of the suit. The limitation for filing a suit for ejectment of a trespasser was two years under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that as one of the co-shares alone could not file a suit under Section 180 U.P. Tenancy and as the other co-shares were transposed as plaintiffs after the prescribed period of two years, the order of the transposition passed by the trial court was illegal and was liable to be interfered with. 5. I do not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner, who based his conclusion mainly on 1944 R.D. page 390. In that ruling the question of limitation did not arise and was not considered. In that ruling, the Board observed that order I Rule 10 C.P.C. did not apply, but it did not give any reasons as to why it was not applicable. Stay observation, without reasoning is not binding as a precedent. It is only the reasoning given in a ruling which is binding on subsequent decisions and as the Board, in 1944 R.D. page 390, did not give any reason as to why order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. was not applicable, that ruling cannot bind this court. Moreover, in that case on question about transposition of parties had arisen and, therefore, the observation of the Board in that ruling is only an obiter. In that case, there had been no application for transposition upto the Board of Revenue, nor had any court ordered transposition of defendants as plaintiffs. Hence, there was no question open in the Board whether the transposition of parties was justified or not. 6. In the present case before me, the learned trial court had already on the application of the plaintiff transposed those defendants as plaintiffs in the case and that transposition was justified to avoid multiplicity of suit and for an adequate, complete and effectual adjudication of the matters in dispute. Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. has been enacted to help in such cases where technical objections are raised that certain persons had not been arrayed as plaintiffs but had been wrongly arrayed as defendants of the case. Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. has been enacted to help in such cases where technical objections are raised that certain persons had not been arrayed as plaintiffs but had been wrongly arrayed as defendants of the case. In A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 162, it has been laid down that the recourse of adding proforma defendants as co-plaintiffs is always to be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner had taken into consideration the fact that the application for transposition had been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. as Section 246 U.P.T. Act do not prescribe any period of limitation. In A.I.R. 1944 Nagpur, 298, Division Bench, it had been held that under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. as court has got ample power to order transposition at any time. No question of limitation is involved when a party is transposed from the array of the defendant to that of the plaintiffs". The provisions of Section 246, U.P. Tenancy Act are not incompatible with the provisions of order Rule 10 C.P.C. and 21 (2) Indian Limitation Act, and hence it cannot be said, as the learned Addl. Commissioner has said, that the provisions of Section 246, U.P.T. Act override the provisions of C.P.C. and Limitation Act. 8. Moreover Section 21(2) of the Indian Limitation Act lays down that where a plaintiff is made a defendant or a defendant is made a plaintiff it will not be deemed that the suit had been instituted when such transposition was made. In other words, it means that question of limitation can possibly never arise in case of transposition of parties. 9. The defendants 5 and 6, who had been transposed as plaintiff, were co-shares of the land in suit along with the plaintiff and the suit for ejectment under Section 180 U.P. Tenancy Act could be instituted by all the co-shares in view of Section 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, was liable to be dismissed. In this case, the defendants 5 and 6, who were later on transposed as plaintiffs had admitted the case of the plaintiff and there was no dispute between the plaintiff and them. To overcome the technical objection laid down under Section 246, U.P. Tenancy Act, defendants nos. In this case, the defendants 5 and 6, who were later on transposed as plaintiffs had admitted the case of the plaintiff and there was no dispute between the plaintiff and them. To overcome the technical objection laid down under Section 246, U.P. Tenancy Act, defendants nos. 5 and 6 were rightly transposed as plaintiffs by the trial court. Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was enacted to overcome such situation and the learned trial court had justifiably taken recourse to those provisions. In view of Section 21(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, question of Limitation could not arise in such case, and this consideration, should not have been there at all. The fact the defendants nos. 5 and 6 had throughout admitted the claim of the plaintiff was a fact to be taken into consideration by the courts. It means that though defendants 5 and 6 had not jointed the suit for ejectment their sympathy was with the plaintiff and that there was no conflict regarding ejectment of defendants 1 and 2 between the plaintiff and other co-shares of the land in suit. 10. In my opinion the order of the learned trial court was just and proper and was also according to the law I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial court because no illegality or material irregularity had been committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction. I, therefore, od not agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial court. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition.