M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 5/1990, whereby he has allowed the application filed by the opposite parties for impleading them as respondents in the said appeal.

2. This short fact giving rise to and relevant for the purpose of this case are that plaintiff/respondents filed Title Suit No. 151/1983 for a decree of eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds of personal necessity, default and breach in terms of tenancy and also for arrears of rent.

3. The defendant/petitioner appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1990 decreed the suit and passed the order for eviction of the defendant. Defendant/petitioner aggrieved by the said decree filed Title Appeal No. 5/90 against the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal the intervenor/opposite parties claimed to have purchased the suit premises from the opposite party No. 5 by registered deed of sale dated 28.9.2001 and made application praying that they maybe added as party respondents. The said application was opposed by the petitioner contending that intervenors are not entitled to be impleaded in the appeal. The Court of appeal below allowed the said application holding that the intervenor being the purchaser are entitled to be impleaded as respondents.

4. Mr. Debt Prasad learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order and submitted that Order XXII, Rule 10 does not provide for impleading purchaser as party in suit or proceeding. According to the learned counsel purchaser can have only right to watch the proceeding from outside and cannot participate in the proceeding. The submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any substance. Provisions of Order XXII, Rule 10 provides that a suit can not be stayed merely by creation or devolution of any interest of a party In the subject matter of the suit. The person claiming interest in the suit property as an assignee may continue the suit with the leave of the Court but if he does not choose to do so the suit may continue with the original party and the person claiming interest in the suit property will be bound by the decree that may be passed. The Rule applies to appeals in cases where devolution takes place pending appeals. Recently in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6 SCC 534, the Apex Court considering the scope of Order XXII, Rule 10 of the CPC observed that :

"Rule 10 provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit other than those referred to in the foregoing rules and is based on the principle that the trial of a suit can not be brought to an end to in the foregoing rules and is based On the principle that the trial of a suit can not be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during its pendency but such a suit may be continued with the leave of the Court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom the interest had devolved.

5. Their lordship further observed that :

"Under Rule 10, Order XXII of the Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitled the person who has acquired an interest in th