Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the Second Munsif, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 250 of 1995 whereby the Court below added opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 as co-plaintiffs in the said suit. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 27.4.1995 executed by the plaintiff in favour of opposite party No. 3 is null void. The plaintiffs case was that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently filed the suit in the name of the plaintiff alleging that the she was limited owner of the suit property as her husband died before 1947. The plaintiffs case was that after getting knowledge of the filing of the suit she was preparing to take steps in the suit but in the meantime the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that they may be added in the category of the plaintiff on the apprehension that the plaintiff might go against their interest. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff and the opposite party-second set. The Court below after hearing $he parties allowed the application. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. The Court below took the view that since the suit properties at one point of time held and possessed by common ancestor of the plaintiff and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the said opposite parties may -be brought in the category of plaintiff. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the Court below committed serious illegality in allowing such petition despite it was vehemently opposed by the plaintiff. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is error on record in the impugned order inasmuch as the plaintiff never agreed to the prayer made by the opposite parties. 5. It appears that after filing of the Civil revision application, the plaintiff petitioner has died and an application has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 who is done praying therein that by virtue of the deed of gift executed by the deceased plaintiff he became the legal representative and, therefore, he may be transposed in the category of the petitioner. 6. 6. I have given my anxious consideration on the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that when the prayer of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for impleading them as co-plaintiff was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner then the Court below ought not to have passed the impugned order allowing that application. It is true that persons added as defendant even against the wishes of the plaintiff if he has interest in the suit property, but it is equally well settled that the plaintiff being the dominus litus no person can be added as co-plaintiff against the wishes of the plaintiff. In my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. So far as the application filed by opposite party No. 3 for his transposition as plaintiff is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where prayer could be allowed at this stage. I am of the view that the parties so advised may bring a fresh suit for adjudication of their right, title and interest in the property. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside subject to the observation made in this order.