Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, with the prayer that impugned order dated 12.04.2010 (Annex.-4) may be quashed and application filed by the petitioner for impleadment as party in the Execution Petition No. 17/2007 pending before the Court of Addl. District Judge No.1, Udaipur may be allowed.

2. According to facts of the case, a decree was passed on 16.11.1989 in favour of the respondents No.3 to 14. Plaintiff decree-holders against respondents No.2 to 14. Plaintiff decree-holders against respondents No.1 and 2 judgment-debtors. In the year 2007, execution petitions were filed by respondents No. 3 to 14 against respondents No.1 and 2 separately. All the execution petitions were consolidated vide order dated 16.01.2009.

3. The petitioner after determination of rights by the Civil Court purchased the share of decree-holder respondent No.3 in respect of the property in question vide registered sale-deed dated 21.04.2009 and, due to purchasing the property in question, all rights or respondent No.3 have now vested in the petitioner, therefore, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed in the execution proceedings being necessary party.

4. Learned executing Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner upon objection raised by respondents No.4 to 14 that the petitioner is not necessary party because sale-deed does have any effect upon the rights of other decree-holders. In writ petition, the petitioner is challenging validity of the rejection order dared 12.04.2010 passed in execution proceedings No. 17/07 pending in the Court or Addl. District Judge No.1, Udaipur.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that share of respondent No.3 was purchased through registered sale-deed by the petitioner, therefore, as per settled principle of law that If third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in question, then, he can be impleaded as party. Admittedly, petitioner purchased the share of tile respondent No. 3 through registered sale-deed, therefore, he is having Interest In the disputed or property to the extent of share of the respondent No. 3 decree-holder and as such there was no occasion for the Court below to reject the application holding that petitioner is not necessary party. The executing Court has committed a serious mistake in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner because admittedly, after passing decree in the year 1989, in the year 2009 the petitioner purchased share of the decree-holder respondent No.3, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and it may be ordered that the petitioner is necessary party and he is entitled to be impleaded as party.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgments reported in Zila Singh & Others v. He-Earl & Others, AIR 1979 SC 1066; Saila Bala Dass v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, AIR 1958 SC 394; A. Nawab John & others v. V. N, Subramanlyam; and, Judgment of Madras High Court, 2012 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 182; Gnanasundaram & Another v. Murugesa Naicker, While citing the above judgments, AIR 1989 Madras 343 it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded as party.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that no error has been committed by the executing Court in passing the order impugned because as per language of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. can be filed during the trial of the suit and application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. can also be filed during the pendency of the suit; but, here, in this case, the application has been filed in the execution proceedings on the ground that petitioner has purchased the property in question to the extent of share of the decree-holder respondent No.3, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having any right to be impleaded as party in place of decree-holder respondent No.3 who has sold his s