MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) Prithviraj Sarin defendant No. 3 in Original Suit No. 907/1987 filed an application 239Ga under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC and Order 23, Rule 1A for being transposed as plaintiff contending that he had purchased part of the suit property by sale deed dated 18.9.2007. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondent for ejectment of the defendants and for realisation of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. It was pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 to 17 were let-out building bearing Municipal No. 630 (old) 8/511 (new), Hing Ki Mandi, Agra along with cinematograph film exhibition machines and fittings. They had illegally sub-let a portion of the property to defendant No. 18 without any right or authority and permission of the original plaintiff. The tenancy of the defendants was terminated and the suit for ejectment was instituted.
(2.) The application 239Ga whereby defendant No. 3 sought his transposition as plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 23.1.2016 holding that the said defendant is not entitled to be transposed as plaintiff against his wish and the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC, nor Order 23, Rule 1A would apply. It is not disputed before this Court that the order dated 23.1.2016 was not challenged and subsequently after the death of the plaintiff, again an application was filed bearing paper No. 292Ga, relying on the same sale deed, requesting the trial Court to substitute defendant No. 3 in place of the deceased plaintiff. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by impugned order dated 16.3.2017 holding that an application containing similar prayer was rejected on 23.1.2016. It has also been held that the petitioner has not purchased the property from the parties to the suit, consequently, Order 22, Rule 10 will not apply. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed by impugned order dated 27.9.2017.
(3.) The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having purchased part of the suit property from some of the coparcener's, as it was a HUF property, was entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff.;