JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners against orders dated 16.03.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 10 under Order 22, Rule 3 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC and in the alternative under Order I, Rule 10(4) read with Section 151 CPC have been allowed. 2. One Mohd. Haneef filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 02.11.2002 against petitioners, inter alia, claiming that the sale deeds were executed based on power of attorney issued by said plaintiff, which was revoked by him. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff transferred the suit property to respondent Nos. 2 to 10. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 10 filed applications under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC for being impleaded as party defendants. 5. The applications were allowed by the trial court in all the matters on 19.01.2009 and the applicants-respondents were impleaded as parties defendants to the suit. 6. Plaintiff Mohd. Haneef died somewhere in August, 2011; where after, respondent Nos. 2 to 10 filed applications under Order 22, Rule 3 and 9 CPC and in the alternative under Order I, Rule 10 (4) CPC, inter alia, indicating that three sons of Mohd. Haneef were already party to the suit as defendants and applications under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for impleading the children of Mohd. Rafique S/o Mohd. Haneef is pending before the trial court, Mohd. Haneef was sufficiently represented on record as the interest of plaintiff Mohd. Haneef and his sons defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are contrary to each other and that of respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are similar to Mohd. Haneef as they have purchased the suit property from Mohd. Haneef by way of registered sale deed and, therefore, they represent the estate of the deceased as legal representatives and, therefore, they may be impleaded as legal representatives of Mohd. Haneef and in the alternative they may be transposed as plaintiffs and the abatement, if any, be set aside. 7. Though no replies to the applications were filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 children of Mohd. Haneef, applications were filed under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, indicating that as 90 days have passed since the death of Mohd. 7. Though no replies to the applications were filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 children of Mohd. Haneef, applications were filed under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, indicating that as 90 days have passed since the death of Mohd. Haneef and no one has filed application for being impleaded as legal representatives, the suit has abated; the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are children of plaintiff and his legal representatives and the right to sue has come to an end to the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its impugned order dated 16.03.2015 came to the conclusion that there was no dispute that plaintiff has died in August, 2011; the applications have been filed on 11.11.2011 and have sought permission for being substituted in place of plaintiff and based on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 1990 CCC 320 came to the conclusion that the purchase of the suit property by the applicants was not disputed and they were having interest in the estate and, therefore, it would be appropriate to implead them as plaintiff and other legal representatives of Mohd. Haneef be taken on record; it was further observed that the impleadment and transposition was only for the purpose of continuing with the suit and the same would not affect the rights of any of the parties and the parties would be required to prove the pleadings. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in transposing the transferees as plaintiffs, inasmuch as, the transfer in their favour was during the pendency of the suit and they have no right as in previous proceedings between plaintiff Mohd. Hanieef and the petitioners, it has already been held that power of attorney was not validly cancelled and, therefore, the trial court committed error in accepting the applications filed by the applicants. 10. Reliance was placed on Mitta Sanjeeva Reddy & Anr. v. Shaik Fakruddin & Anr. : 2012 (1) CCC 124 (A.P.) , Abdul Jabbar & Ors. v. Abdul Khan & Ors. : 2008 (2) CCC 455 (Bombay) , Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. & Ors. : 2008 (2) SCC 561 (SC) and Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik v. Pushpendra Kumari & Ors. : 2009 (2) CCC 54 (SC) . 11. : 2012 (1) CCC 124 (A.P.) , Abdul Jabbar & Ors. v. Abdul Khan & Ors. : 2008 (2) CCC 455 (Bombay) , Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. & Ors. : 2008 (2) SCC 561 (SC) and Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik v. Pushpendra Kumari & Ors. : 2009 (2) CCC 54 (SC) . 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. Interest of the applicants in the suit property already stands established on account of acceptance of their applications under Order I, Rule 10 CPC by the trial court on 19.01.2009; the petitioners did not challenge the order dated 19.01.2009 and the said order has become final; the fact that the plaintiff Mohd. Haneef executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are not denied though the right to execute sale deeds are of course challenged and, therefore, even under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC, the respondents were entitled to be impleaded in place of the plaintiff in the first instance; further the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 CPC, in given circumstances, provide that a defendant can be transposed as plaintiff and it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in accepting the application filed by the respondents. 12. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the judgments pertain to impleadment in suit for specific performance, which have no application to the facts of the present case as the present is a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds. Even otherwise, once the respondent Nos. 2 to 10 have been impleaded as party to the suit, the judgments have essentially no relations to the controversy in issue. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. The stay petitions are also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******