Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 4-9-1985, passed by Munsif, III Court, Chapra in Title Suit No.110 of 1973-79 whereby and whereunder he directed that the intervenor-opposite-party No.1 be added as a party to the suit. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. One Dr. Dwarika Prasad being the original Landlord filed a suit for eviction against the defendants-opposite-parties. After his death his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. 4. By a sale deed dated 28-4-1984 the said heirs of late Dr. Dwarika prasad transferred their right, title and interest in respect of the land in suit in favour of the opposite-party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.9,000. The petitioners also purchased the right, title and interest in respect of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.30,000 from the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika prasad by a registered deed dated 21-8-1978. The petitioners further allegedly purchased a portion of the suit-premises by virtue of two sale deeds dated 10-11-1979 for a consideration of Rs.6,500 and Rs.6,000 respectively from the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad. 5. The petitioners were, thereafter impleaded as plaintiffs in Title Suit no.110 of 1973 in view of the alleged devolution of interest of the original plaintiifs in terms of Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been asserted by the petitioners that the defence of the tenant who was originally the sold defendant in the suit (opposite-party No.2 herein)was struck off in terms of Sec.11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1947. 6. The opposite-party No.1 after his aforementioned purported purchase of a portion of the suit premises by the aforementioned sale deed dated 28-4-1984 filed an application for being impleaded as a party in terms of Order I, Rule 10 (2)of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order dated 4-9-1985 the learned court below has allowed the said prayer. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case, the opposite-party No.1 could not have impleaded as a party-plaintiff as thereby there would occur inter-se conflicts amongst the plaintiffs. In this connection he has relied upon a decision of Ram Gopal Sah V/s. Dhirendra Nath and others, reported in AIR 1981 Pat 288. 8. Mr. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case, the opposite-party No.1 could not have impleaded as a party-plaintiff as thereby there would occur inter-se conflicts amongst the plaintiffs. In this connection he has relied upon a decision of Ram Gopal Sah V/s. Dhirendra Nath and others, reported in AIR 1981 Pat 288. 8. Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, on the other hand, submitted that by the impugned order, the opposite-party No.1 has not been impleaded as a plaintiff but has merely impleaded as a party to the suit and as such the aforementioned decision has no application. According to the learned Counsel the opposite-party No.1 may be impleaded as a party-defendent. 9. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. From the records of the case it is evident that the petitioners were substituted in place of the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad as plaintiifs in the suit and thereafter the opposite-party No.1 was sought to be added as a party in terras of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the impugned order. 11. The question is as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the petitioners and the tenant, namely, Ram Bhagat sah or not and or as to whether the petitioners are entitled to a decree for eviction as against the said defendants were the only issues required to be decided in the suit. 12. The opposity-party No. I by filing an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. at a much later stage could not have questioned either directly or indirectly the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the learned court below whereby and whereunder the petitioners were substituted in place of the heirs of late Dr. Dwarika Prasad. 13. The opposite-party No.1 by reason of his alleged purchase by virtue of the purported deed of sale dated 28-4-1984 could have got himself substituted in place of the heirs of Dr. Dwarika Prasad in terms of Order, XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at an appropriate stage but the said stage is over. 14. Dwarika Prasad. 13. The opposite-party No.1 by reason of his alleged purchase by virtue of the purported deed of sale dated 28-4-1984 could have got himself substituted in place of the heirs of Dr. Dwarika Prasad in terms of Order, XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at an appropriate stage but the said stage is over. 14. If the opposite party No.1 is added as a co-plaintiff, in that event there will be an inter se dispute amongst the plaintiffs which is not permissible in law. 15. If opposite-party No.1 is impleaded as a defendant in the suit in such an event, the scope of the suit would unnecessarily be enlarged as in such circumstances in the said suit the disputed question of title by and between the opposite-party No.1 and the petitioners would have to be decided which issue is not involved in the suit filed by the plaintiffs as against the tenant-opposite party No.2. 16. In this view of the matter I am of the view that the opposite-parly no.1 could not be impleaded as a party in the suit at all. 17. However it is needless to say that the opposite-party No.1 would have the right to file an independent suit claiming a decree for declaration of his title in his favour in respect of the premises in suit which allegedly vested in him by virtue of sale deed dated 28-4-1984 as against the petitioners and in that event it would also be open to him to file an application for getting the said suit heard analogously with the instant suit. 18. Taking into consideration of all aspects of the matter I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and as such it is hereby set aside. 19. In the result this civil revision application is allowed but without any order as to costs. Revision allowed.