JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The applicants who are five in number, are the original lessees or their heirs, and legal representatives, impleaded in the suit as defendants 1, 2 and 3. They have approached this Court assailing the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the trial court allowing the application of the plaintiff/respondents for amendment in the plaint, whereby the original defendants 4 to 35 were permitted to be deleted from the array of parties. According to the plaint assertions, defendants 4 to 35 were sub-tenants. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was for the ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages, on the ground that the conditions of lease had been violated. 2. The trial court has allowed the application for deletion holding that the sub-tenants are not necessary parties in a suit for ejectment. The same view has been taken by the revisional court while dismissing the revision by order dated 15.4.2014. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on previous occasion upon death of defendant no.4, who was the sub-tenant, the plaintiff filed an application for exempting him from bringing on record his heirs and legal representatives. The application was allowed by the trial court in exercise of power under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) CPC. However, in a revision filed by the heirs of the deceased defendant, the revisional court by order dated 7.2.2006 allowed the revision holding that the trial court erred in exempting the plaintiff from impleading the heirs of the deceased defendant no.4. A perusal of the judgement of the revisional court would reveal that the revisional court was of the opinion that Order 22 Rule 4 (4) CPC would not be attracted as the concerned defendant was duly contesting the suit by filing written statement. The submission now made is that the impugned order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for deleting the name of the sub-tenants from the array of parties, is in the teeth of the order of the revisional court dated 7.2.2006. 3. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents pointed out that none of the defendants who have been deleted from the array of parties, are before this Court in the instant application. 3. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents pointed out that none of the defendants who have been deleted from the array of parties, are before this Court in the instant application. Rather the application has been filed by the original lessees, namely, defendants 1, 2 and 3 or their legal representatives. It is contended that since they continue to be party to the suit and therefore, they cannot be said to be aggrieved persons to justify invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find substantial force in the contentions made in this regard by Sri P.N. Saxena. Admittedly, the present applicants continue to be party in the suit. They have, thus, no locus to challenge the impugned orders. 5. The application is accordingly dismissed.