Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The instant petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by District Judge, Jaunpur dismissing Civil Revision No. 111 of 2016 and the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), First, Jaunpur allowing an application 55 Ka filed by respondent No. 13 seeking impleadment as a party defendant. The trial Court has entered a specific finding in the impugned order that the suit property 113 Kha is minjumla number of plot No. 113, which according to the revenue records is still joint. Santra Devi, who filed the application for impleadment, has purchased the share of Harihar Prasad, one of the defendants in the suit, by registered sale-deed dated 3.9.2013. It has also been observed that in respect of house No. 7, which lies over the disputed land, which the plaintiff-petitioners claim to be their property, name of Santra Devi stands recorded vide Paper No. 38 Ga. Having regard to these facts, the trial Court has held that presence of Santra Devi in the suit, wherein prohibitory injunction has been sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the right of the plaintiffs to raise construction over the suit property, would be necessary, as in her absence it would be difficult to determine the real matter in dispute in the suit. The order passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court is not invested with power to allow impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. According to him, in case a party has purchased suit property during pendency of the suit, the impleadment could be directed under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and not under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mehbood v. Zahira and others, 2015(4) ADJ 82.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 13 Santra Devi submitted that she being assignee of the interest of defendant during pendency of the suit was rightly allowed to be added as a party defendant. He submitted that the power could be exercised under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. It is further urged that even if the power to permit impleadment is vested under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC but the Court has referred to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it would not render the order illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhanlakshmi and others v. P. Mohan and others, (2007) 10 SCC 719, Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others, (2013) 5 SCC 397 and Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya, 2017 (9) SCC 700.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Although the petitioner has pleaded that partition had taken place between the co-sharers in respect of the suit property, but the trial Court in the impugned order, placing reliance on CH Form 41 and 45, has entered a specific finding that the holding as per revenue records is still joint. It is not disputed that Harihar Prasad, the vendor of Santra Devi was a party defendant in the suit. He has transferred his entire interest in the holding in favour of Santra Devi by registered sale-deed dated 3.9.2013 i.e. during the pendency of the suit. The other crucial finding recorded by the trial Court is that house No. 7 built over it stands recorded in the name of Santra Devi also as per Paper No. 68 Ga. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff-petitioners themselves had purchased the suit property from the original plaintiff Baijnath by registered sale-deed dated 25.10.2012 i.e. during the pendency of the suit and thereafter got themselves impleaded as plaintiffs.

6. In Thomson Press (India) Limited (supra), the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether an assignee of interest of defendant in a suit for specific performance is entitled to be substituted. In that ca