1. Defect Nos. 3 and 4 as pointed out by the Stamp Report are ignored.

2. Heard, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as well as Mr. Arun Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party No. 1.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1986 whereby a petition under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading the purchaser from the respondent opposite party No. 1 as a party respondent in the appeal has been refused by the lower appellate court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the transaction is of the period of the pendency of the appeal without taking any leave from the court concerned, still the purchaser should have been impleaded as a party in this appeal to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and Another V/s. Farida Khatoon and Another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2209 wherein substitution of purchaser on account of sale in place of vendor was permitted by the Apex Court.

5. The tr