Pandrang Row, J.

1. These are petitions to revise the orders of the District Judge of Kistna dated the 30th March, 19-39 allowing two persons to be impleaded as respondents in an appeal which had come on for hearing and in which an objection had been taken by the only respondent in the appeal till then that the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the omission to implead one of those persons as a respondent, namely, the second defendant in the suit. The application to implead the second defendant was made by the appellants. The other application was made by the third defendant herself to be impleaded as a respondent. Both the applications were allowed by the Court below in very short orders which merely were to the effect that the persons in question were to be added as respondents subject to objections that might be made regarding amendment of the grounds of appeal.

2. So far as C. R. P. No. 746 of 1939 is concerned, it relates to the application by the third defendant to be made a respondent. In that petition there has not been very serious opposition, because it is impossible to say that the third defendant has any interest in coming on record in a