The court has the discretion to implead a person as a party under Order I, Rule 10 (2), CPC, or Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC, but this discretion must be exercised judicially.

( 1 ) THIS revision is by the pendente lite purchasers against the order dated 30-6-1992, passed in Civil Suit No. 5a of 1990 by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order I, Rule 10, CPC and under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts giving rise to this petition are these. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3, are the members of the one family. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and injunction and for possession of her share in agricultural land and a house. After notice the defendants appeared in the suit and sought time for filing written statement and for that the case was adjourned from time to time. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2, Ramdulare executed two sale-deeds on 18-9-1991 in favour of the petitioners, transferring 11 Bighas and 6 Biswas which was part of the suit land of 17 Bighas, 16 Biswas, situated at village Khuri, District Behind. Out of the two sale-deeds, one was for Rs. 87,000/- and another was for Rupees 35,500/ -. After execution of the sale-deeds and transfer of the part of the suit land, the defendants absented themselves in the suit. The trial Court proceeded exparte and closed the hearing after recording evidence on 11-3-1992 and fixed the case for pronouncing judgment on 14-3-1992. The petitioners having come to know that suit is pending and the judgment is not pronounced, applied on 22-4-1992 for impleading them as a party as defendants, have transferred their interest and the petitioners are vitally interested in the judgment which may ultimately be passed. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the application stating that as the hearing is closed and the case is fixed for pronouncement of the judgment and also held that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit. Hence, this revision.

( 3 ) SHRI Roman, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are the purchasers pendante lite, but the petitioners were not having any knowledge of pending litigation the vendors have received full consideration without disclosing the fact of pendency of the suit, thereafter, the defendants having no interest, chose to remain ex parte so that if any decree is passed it is the petitioners who had to suffer as they will be bound by the proceedings or the decree which may ultimately be passed in the suit. Therefore, even if the hearing was closed in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court ought to have allowed the petitioners to be impleaded suo motu as a party to the suit, particularly when the suit is for declaration and possession for half of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land with the defendant No. 2 the mother of the defendant No. 1, even if the judgment is pronounced, a preliminary decree will be passed which will not be final. If the petitioners are not allowed to be impleaded as party, neither the petitioners can file an application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC to set aside ex parte decree nor they can appeal and thus they will be deprived of the valuable land which will cause a great injustice to the petitioners.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Shri V. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff, raised a preliminary objection that the application for impleading as a party was virtually an application under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC, for grant of leave of the Court to continue the suit on devolution of interest which was refused. Against such an order of refusing to grant leave under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC, an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (1), CPC and not a revision under Section 115, CPC. On merits, it was contended that as the hearing in the case was closed and the case was posted for pronouncing judgment in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR