The main legal principle established is that the addition of a party at the appellate stage is governed by Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the direct interest of the party in the suit property justifies their presence in the appeal.

This civil revision by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is directed against the order dated 27.7.96 by which opposite party no. 6 Deepak Kumar Arya has been added as co-appellant in appeal (Title Appeal No. 19 of 1995). There is no dispute that opposite party no. 6 purchased the suit property and, therefore, he has got direct interest therein. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the purchase was made contrary to the order of injunction. He relied on Surjit Singh vs. Harbans Singh (1996 Supreme Court, 135). That decision is an authority on the point as to the effect of purchase in violation of injunction order. At this stage the court is merely to see whether he has got interest in the suit properties or not and his presence in the appeal is essential. There cannot be doubt that the appeal is continuation of suit and the principal enshrined under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure will govern in the matter of addition of party at the appellate stage as well. It would not be out of place to mantion here that according to opposite party no. 6, his vendor the original appellant after the sale left taking interest in the suit/appeal and his presence in the appeal is, therefore, necessary. The court has accepted his case. I do not think exercise of discretion in case of opposite party no. 6 was arbitrary.

2. The revision has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.