JUDGMENT 1. - These revisions by the petitioner Kanhaiyalal are directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara dated 18 11-1985, whereby, the petitioner Kanhaiyalal's application Under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was rejected and the application of Mst. Mangi Bai Under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code and of Babulal (defendant) Under Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code were allowed and both of them were plaintiffs in the suit. 2. It is necessary to state a few relevant facts in order to correctly appreciate the controversy in the present revision petitions. 3. One Mst. Tammu Bai widow of Shri Sunderlal Chordia filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the suit-shop. Inter alia, it is alleged by her that the shop in question was an ancestral property of Babulal and Basanti Lal and her husband Sunderlal Choridia. After the death of her husband, the suit shop fell to the share of Babulal and Basantilal and the plaintiff was given a right to recover the rent for her maintenance. In exercise of her right, she let out the shop in question to Himmatlal on 1-12-1968 at rate of Rs. 57/-per month. The tenancy was oral. Mst. Tammu Bai died on 21-8-1983. Her daughter Mangi Bai submitted an application Under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code on 30-9-1983 that she may be substituted as a plaintiff in place of Mst. Tammu Bai. 4. The defendant Babulal submitted an application on 30-9-1983 Under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC. He prayed for his transposition as plaintiff. It was alleged by him that he is a co-landlord along with Basantilal and as such he is entitled to be transposed as plaintiff in place of the deceased Mst. Tammu Bai. 5. Another application was submitted by the present petitioner Kanhaiyalal on 17-11-1983 Under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC. It was alleged by the present petitioner that Smt. Tammu Bai executed a registered gift-deed in favour of the petitioner Kanhaiyalal on 17-5-1983 and as a result thereof, he became the owner of the property in question and as such he was entitled to be substituted in place of Mst. Tammu Bai to proceed with the suit. 6. These applications were heard by the learned Munsif and disposed of as stated above. Tammu Bai to proceed with the suit. 6. These applications were heard by the learned Munsif and disposed of as stated above. The petitioner's application Under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was rejected. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsif has seriously erred in rejecting the petitioner's application. The deceased Mst. Tammu Bai was the full owner of the property in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and so, she could assign the property in question in favour of the petitioner through a registered gift-deed. Thus, her title stood transferred in favour of the petitioner Kanhaiyalal. It is only the transferee Kanhaiyalal, who is entitled to realise the rent and seek necessary relief. He submitted that the learned Munsif proceeded on wrong premises. It was erroneous on his part to consider that in the present case, Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is not attracted and this case is governed Under Order 22, Rule 3, CPC. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, in my opinion, it appears that the parties who prayed for being substituted as plaintiffs were not supplied the copies of the application filed by the petitioner Kanhaiyalal. What Mangi Bai and Babulal have to say in respect of the application submitted by Kanhaiyalal has not gone on record. I need not enter into the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these revision petitions. In my opinion, it would be better that copy of the application of the petitioner Kanhaiyalal be delivered to Shri Babulal and Mst. Mangi Bai and their replies to the application may be obtained. It is true that in the suit no title has been alleged in the plaintiff Mst. Tammu Bai but these facts appear in the plaint itself that she has been conferred with the right to recover rent for her maintenance and the property fell to the share of Babulal and Basantilal. This case will have to be examined as to whether Mst. Tammu Bai in law acquired full ownership and was competent to part away with the property by a registered gift deed. An examination of this question would depend as to whether the application Under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was maintainable. This case will have to be examined as to whether Mst. Tammu Bai in law acquired full ownership and was competent to part away with the property by a registered gift deed. An examination of this question would depend as to whether the application Under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was maintainable. I need not refer to the decision of the Supreme Court on the basis of which the plaintiff claims that Mst. Tammu Bai is the full owner of the property. In the light of the matter what I have considered above, it would be appropriate that the order of the learned Munsif may be set aside and the case may be sent back to the learned Munsif to decide the application of the petitioner as well as the other applications after supplying the necessary copies thereof to all the parties and learned Munsif shall give full opportunity to the parties and thereafter decide the applications in accordance with law. 9. In the result, these revisions are allowed. The order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrare, Nathdwara dated 18-11-1985 is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the aforesaid three applications in the light of the observations made above. 10. The parties shall bear their own costs of these revision petitions.Revisions allowed. *******