1. I entirely agree with the office that this petitioner must adopt the cause title of the common order passed by the lower Court and also implead the decree-holders as respondents as he has done. It does not seem to me to be necessary that in a revision petition filed against a common order giving rateable distribution to some of the decree-holders and witholding in the case of another, that the aggrieved party should file as many Revision Petitions as there are rateable decree-holders. In fact such a multiplicity of Civil Revision Petitions would cause confusion and prevent the aggrieved party from presenting a complete picture apart from the fact that no useful purpose would be served because the measure in which the revision petitioner would succeed would be the measure in which the other decree-holders would be proportionately deprived of the amounts distributed to them in rateable distribution.
2. The reference of the office is answered accordingly.