JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Having heard learned counsel for the applicant I find no merit in this revision. 2. This revision is directed against an order passed by the court below in a pending suit allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for the deletion of the name of Baba Ram Priya Dass arrayed as defendant No. 2. 3. The contention of the learned counsel is that Baba Ram Priya Dass was the main contesting defendant in the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of a public temple and lie being the Mahanth and Sarvarakar of the temple, the cause of action survived notwithstanding bis death. Consequently, it was not open to the plaintiffs to apply for the deletion of the name of the said defendant from the array of respondents. 4. I am unable to agree. The court below has rightly observed that the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to substitute heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. In my opinion, it is always open to a plaintiff to apply for the deletion of any of the defendants from the array of parties against whom he does not desire to claim any relief. On the same ratio the plaintiffs cannot be compelled to substitute the heirs of a deceased-defendant. What is the legal effect of the failure or refusal of the plaintiff to substitute the heirs is, however, quite another matter. The plaintiffs have in their application categorically stated that they are not claiming any relief against the heirs of Ram Priya Dass. That being so, the court below cannot be said to have committed any error in following the plaintiffs application. 5. Learned counsel next contended that under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. there is no provision for deletion of the name of a deceased defendant and consequently the court had no power to direct the deletion of the name of the defendant No. 2. The agreement is wholly unacceptable. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. has no relevance whatever to the issue. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) deals with the power of the court to add or delete the name of any party whose presence the court considers necessary or proper. It has nothing to do with the option of the plaintiffs not to substitute the heirs of a deceased-defendant. 6. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) deals with the power of the court to add or delete the name of any party whose presence the court considers necessary or proper. It has nothing to do with the option of the plaintiffs not to substitute the heirs of a deceased-defendant. 6. Learned counsel placed reliance on General Rule (Civil) 37 and submitted that under this a plaintiff is bound to substitute the heirs of a deceased defendant and the court is obligated to direct the substitution of the heirs. Reference to General Rule (Civil) 37 is entirely out of place. It comes into play only when the plaintiff is desirous of substituting the heirs of a deceased-defendant. 7. Lastly, Learned counsel urged that the impugned order will have the effect of debarring the applicant from applying for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in his own independent right vis-a-vis the temple. The apprehension is wholly unfounded. The impugned order merely disposes of an application, filed by the plaintiffs for the deletion of the name of defendant No. 2. It does not bar the entertainment of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., which may be moved by the applicant for being impleaded in the suit or for being allowed the right to contest the same in his own right, if he has any. I must, however, make it clear that I am expressing no opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim, that is, whether or not he is entitled to be impleaded in the suit as a defendant. 8. Learned counsel cited A.I.R. 1975 S.C. page 2159 (para 10) and 1934 Allahabad, page 315. These cases are of no assistance to the issue involved in the case. They do not touch the controversy at hand. 9. The revision is accordingly dismissed summarily.