Short Note Heard on admission. Rejection of applicants' application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by trial Court has given rise to this revision petition. Respondent No.2 as landlord instituted a suit against respondent No.1 for eviction on various grounds. Respondent No.1 happens to be widow of Babulal and mother of applicants. Applicants are undisputedly living in the suit house. The applicants wanted to be impleaded as respondents on the ground that they were legal representatives of Babulal, who was the original tenant, contending that all the legal representatives should be impleaded in place of Babulal. This contention was not accepted by learned trial Court on the ground that first as per plaint allegations, relationship of landlord and tenant existed only between respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 as would be evident from the documents produced by respondent No.2 and also looking to the pleadings of the respective sides on that aspect. The learned trial Court was also of the view that all the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant were not required to be impleaded in his place as was held in the case of Ramjilal v. Bhiqchulal [MPRCJ (1993) 6 Note 112]. Having heard learned counsel at length and on going through the pleadings and written statement, it is found that there appears no clash in the interest of respondent No. 1 and applicants, who are legal representatives of the deceased Babulal. Respondent No. 1 is the mother and head of the family and as per the pleadings and written-statement, it is occasionally that the rent-receipt was issued by the landlord in the name of Omprakash-applicant, who happens to be son of respondent No. 1, but there appears nothing in the pleadings and written-statement that respondent No. 1 does not represent the interest of remaining other legal representatives, who are her sons and daughters, and therefore, decision In the case of Suraiya Begum v. Mohammad Usman [1991 (2) MPWN 49] relied by learned counsel for applicants does not come to his assistance. The ratio in the aforesaid case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court appears to have committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application and passing the order impugned. The ratio in the aforesaid case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court appears to have committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the application and passing the order impugned. Revision petition, therefore, lacks merit and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. In view of rejection of the revision petition, M.C.P. No. 270/2001 is also rejected.