Short Note Final arguments heard with the consent of parties. The Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction etc., against the original defendant Ramesh Kumar Ahuja. The said defendant Ramesh Kumar Ahuja died during pendency of the suit. An application for substitution of his legal representatives in his place was filed, which was allowed by the trial Court. The petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 are the legal representatives of Ramesh Kumar Ahuja. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, for setting aside ex-parte proceedings which had taken place in the suit in her absence. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of substitution of legal representatives was never served on the petitioner, and therefore, she was entitled to oppose the application and relegate the case to the stage of substitution of legal representatives in the suit. However, the learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs submits that the petitioner and other respondents No.2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased tenant Ramesh Kumar Ahuja, and they therefore, are joint tenants. In such circumstances, service of notice on one of the tenants was sufficient and notices were not required to be served on all the joint tenants. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the above regard placed reliance on the observations in Basant Singh and another v. Roman Catholic Mission [2000 (1) MPLJ 57], wherein it has been observed that service of summons on one of joint tenants was more than sufficient and could be taken as due service on the other joint tenants as well. Therefore, the other joint tenants would be imputed with the knowledge of the date fixed for appearance in the suit. In view of the above, the impugned order, rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, of the petitioner one of the joint tenants does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to partake in the proceedings of the suit from the present stage. Accordingly, this revision as well as M(C) P. No. 170812000 stand dismissed.