CRP 462/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH Heard Mr. S. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision is preferred against the order dated 29-09-2010 passed by Munsiff, Udalguri in Misc. (J) Case No. 13 of 2010 arising out of the Title Suit No. 12 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the application preferred under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by plaintiff, namely, Smt. kiran Bala Das and Sm t. Nirupama Das seeking impleadment of the heirs of Gobinda Das, plaintiff No. 3 , since deceased has been rejected. Title Suit No. 12 of 2007 was instituted by Smt. Kiran Bala Das, Smt. Nirupama Das and Sri Gobinda Das. On the death of Gobinda Das, the remaining plaintiffs f iled the application as indicated above for impleadment of the legal heirs of th e Lt. Gobinda Das. The court while rejecting the application so made observed as follows : Courts cannot force anyone to be a plaintiff and file a case or prosecute any i ndividual. If the heirs themselves are not interested; the court simply cannot d irect the heirs to be impleaded as plaintiffs. Moreover as per the petitioner/pl aintiffs version in their pleadings at para 5 of ptn. No. 200 of 2010 dated 16-0 9-2010 have stated about the disinclination of the persons sought to be impleade d to enter into this litigation. It is submitted by Mr. S. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner that this ob servation of the learned court below is not inconformity with paragraph-5 of Ann exure-1 to the petition and, therefore, order passed by the learned trial court is erroneous and illegal and the same cannot stand in the eye of law. Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides impleadment of the leg al heirs of the deceased plaintiff, if right to sue survives. Here in this case, it appears that the suit was originally filed by three plaintiffs one of whom d ied on 28-9-20080, therefore, as per Sub Rule 2 of the Rule 3 of the Order, subs titution ought to have been made within the period of limitation. However, the r emaining plaintiffs by filing the application on 16-9-2010 sought for impleadmen t/substitution of the legal heirs of Lt. Gobinda Das, the plaintiff No. 3 (since deceased). The petition being not made within the period of limitation impleadm ent as per Rule cannot be allowed, since the suit abated in respect of the plain tiff No. 3(since deceased). It is also apprised by Mr. Barua, the learned counsel for the petitioners that t he plaintiffs while preferring the application for impleadment also failed to fi le application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of de lay as well as for setting aside the abatement that occurred on account of death of the plaintiff No. 3. On this score alone the petition filed by the rest of t he plaintiffs could not have been allowed, although the rejection of the applica tion filed by the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 has been rejected on different footing by the trial judge. This court, therefore, does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned o rder. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. No cost.