Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby their application under Order 22 Rule 3 to represent Bahadur Chand as his legal heirs was declined. 2. The Trial Court has declined such application on the ground that the suit has been filed by Lord Shivji Maharaj, deity, through Bahadur Chand, therefore, the death of Bahadur Chand will not give any right to the L. Rs to implead themselves as party to the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute such proposition but asserts that as the worshippers of deity, their interest is common with that of deity and, therefore, the petitioners could be impleaded as plaintiffs to the suit in terms of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that there is no such prayer in the application and, therefore, they have a right to file independent application before the trial Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be impleaded as plaintiffs as worshippers of plaintiff No. 1. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff No. 1, through one of worshippers of Lord Shivji Maharaj as well as other 8 worshippers. Since there are already 8 worshippers, the interest of the applicants is common with other worshippers. It is also stated by the petitioners that they do not intend to file any other pleadings nor intend to lead any independent evidence and would participate the suit from the stage in which the proceedings are pending. 6. In view of the above, revision petition is disposed of with the order to implead the petitioners as plaintiff Nos. 10 and 11. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled to file any fresh pleadings and shall not be entitled to lead any other independent evidence than the evidence being led by the other plaintiffs.