( 1 ) SINCE common point is involved in both these Civil Revision Applications, both are disposed of by this common judgement.

( 2 ) SO far as Civil Revision Application No. 1103/2002 is concerned, the same is filed by the original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 194/1988 challenging the order dated 20th September, 2002, passed below Exh. 59 by the learned 4th Civil Judge (S. D.) Vadodara, by which the learned Judge has rejected the withdrawal pursis filed by the applicants of this Civil Revision Application.

( 3 ) SO far as Civil Revision Application No. 1104/2002 is concerned, the same is filed by the original plaintiffs of aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 194/88, challenging the order of same date of the learned trial Judge passed below Exh. 57, by which third party, i. e. , opponents No. 2 to 5 herein were permitted to be joined as co-plaintiffs in the said suit. The learned trial Judge has passed that order under Order 1 Rule 10 of C. P. C.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the original plaintiffs have filed these Revision Applications before this Court.

( 5 ) THE facts leading to the controversy are as under:the applicants herein instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 194/1988 before the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Vadodara. The said suit is filed against the opponents No. 1/1 to 1/5 herein, for specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of the suit land admeasuring 1 Acre and 31 gunthas bearing Survey No. 354/1, situated at Manjalpur area of city of Vadodara, which is subsequently given final plot No. 347 in Town Planning Scheme No. 19. The case of the original plaintiffs in the suit is that the defendants have executed a banakhat on 11-3-1986 in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have paid Rs. 1,54,251. 00 to the defendants as earnest money and subsequently further amount was also paid to the defendants towards the consideration. According to the plaintiffs, an amount of Rs. 2,06,251. 00 is paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and that final sale deed was to be executed by the defendants after finalization of the town planning scheme. Since the defendants failed to execute the document of sell, the plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the suit agreement, dated 11-3-1986.

( 6 ) THE said suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds by filing their written statement at Exh. 13. During the pendency of the said suit, applicants (original plaintiffs) gave an application (pursis) at Exh. 59, requesting the Court to allow them to withdraw the suit unconditionally. In the withdrawal pursis, an averment is made to the effect that the suit is filed by oversight and the plaintiffs were misguided by one broker and on inquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have not executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and that agreement was also got registered by way of fraud. It is also stated in the pursis that the plaintiff subsequently came to know about the real facts and, therefore, they have shown willingness to withdraw the suit unconditionally. This application for withdrawal of the suit was given on 26-7-2002 at Exh. 59.

( 7 ) ON that very day i. e. on 26-7-2002, the third party-respondents No. 2 to 5 herein gave an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C. P. C. , at Exh. 57, requesting the Court to permit them to be joined as party to the suit. In the said application, it is averred by the applicants (third party), who wanted to be joined as party in the aforesaid suit, that there is an agreement to sell executed by the original owners in favour of the plaintiffs, which is dated 11-5-1986. It is also averred in the said application that subsequently the plaintiffs have agreed to sell the land in question to the applicants (third party) on 14-9-1987 and accordingly, the plaintiffs have assigned their rights in favour of the applicants (third party) by executing a banakhat dated 14-9-1987. It is also