JUDGMENT Rampini, J. - This is a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of in this case should not be set aside. The order complained of is one under sec. 437, C. P. C., refusing to make one of the applicants a party in a redemption suit. The facts are these :--The opposite party obtained a preliminary decree for foreclosure against one Surja Kumar Chatterjee, who is the brother of the applicant, Akhoy Kumar Chatterjee, and is the executor under their father's Will. Surja Kumar therefore fully represents the estate. Surja Kumar alone was made a party to the redemption, suit and the preliminary order for foreclosure was passed against him. After this preliminary order was passed, one of the present applicants, Akhoy Kumar Chatterjee, prayed to the Court to be made a party to the suit, so that he might redeem the property before the final decree. His application was dismissed under sec. 437, C.P.C. Now Akhoy Kumar Chatterjee and a purchaser from Akhoy have appeared before this Court and obtained this rule. They have asked to be made parties to the suit so that they may redeem the property. 2. We think that there is really no reason why we should make the order prayed for. Surja Kumar Chatterjee was the only executor named in his father's Will and he fully represented the father's estate. There was no necessity for the opposite party to have made the present applicant Akhoy a party to the suit and further it appears to us that as Akhoy has transferred a considerable portion of his interest in the property which he obtained under his father's Will to the transferee, the other applicant, whose name is Mohananda Chatterjee, he has little or no interest in redeeming the property. The person who is really interested in redeeming the property is Mohananda Chatterjee, and he has no right to be made a party to the proceedings in the redemption suit. 3. Furthermore, we are told that Mohananda had made a previous attempt to intervene in these proceedings. He tried to be made a party to the probate case before the District Judge and his application was refused. For these reasons he has no right to be made a party to the redemption proceedings and has no right to redeem the property. Furthermore, we are told that Mohananda had made a previous attempt to intervene in these proceedings. He tried to be made a party to the probate case before the District Judge and his application was refused. For these reasons he has no right to be made a party to the redemption proceedings and has no right to redeem the property. The rule is discharged with costs two gold mohurs.