Judgment Imam, J. This is an application against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, second court, Patna, rejecting an application of the petitioner to add a person, who was defendant no. 2 in the trial court in a suit for redemption, as a party to his cross-objection What had happened was that the plaintiff had filed a suit for redemption and in that suit he made certain persons as defendants. Defendant No. 1 was Srimati Sonamati Devi and defendant no. 2 was Mewalal, her husband. The suit for redemption was decreed so far as defendant no. 1 was concerned, but dismissed against the other defendants. Defendant no. 1 then filed an appeal and in that appeal she made the been filed on the 28th September 1951. The notice of the appeal was served upon the respondent, that is to say, the petitioner in this Court, on the 4th Feb 1952 and a cross-objection under order 41 rule 22 was filed by the petitioner on the 3rd March, 1952. For some reason on other, the cross-objection was not formally admitted until the 2nd August, 1952 upon which date the petitioner filed an application that defendant no. The Subordinate judge for the reasons given by him rejected this application. 2. It was strongly urged that the Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity in refusing to exercise a jurisdiction which he did possess. This was a fit case, having regard to the nature of the suit and the defence put up by the defendants, in which the petitioner should have been allowed to add defendant no. 2 of the suit as a party to his cross-objection, It was pointed out that in the matter of adding parties, there was no question of this Court in Pasarath Mahto v. Hitan Singh1. Reliance was also placed upon certain observations made by Verma, J. in the case of Surak Prakash Puri v. Sant Lal Singh2. Reference was also made to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Two parcels of land described in the petition as A and B, the former a bigger plot and the latter a smaller plot, were mortgaged by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 Srimati Sonamati Devi. Reference was also made to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Two parcels of land described in the petition as A and B, the former a bigger plot and the latter a smaller plot, were mortgaged by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 Srimati Sonamati Devi. It was to redeem this mortgage that the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption, and the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff concerning land B which it found to be is the actual possession of Srimati Sonamati Devi. So far as land A was concerned, the suit was also decreed against Srimati Sonamati Devi directing her to give to the land since Srimati Sonamati Devi herself had only symbolical possession, because land A was in the tenancy of defendant no. 2 and the other defendants are concerned, the trial court held that as in its opinion defendants No. 1 Sonamti Devi alone was the mortgagee, the other defendants were impleaded under an apprehension that they were necessary parties although they were not so. As I have said, the court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as against those defendants who were not necessary parties to the suit. 4. It will be seen from the manner in which the court decided the redemption suit that the suit for redemption against defendant no. 2 was dismissed because he was not a necessary party, but was decreed as against defendant no. 1 Sonamati Devi only. When Sonamati Devi filed an appeal against the decree passed by the court directing her to give actual possession of land B symbolical possession of land a to the plaintiff, so far as she was concerned, the only person that was required to be made respondent in her appeal was the plaintiff, as the suit against the defendants other than Sonamati Devi had been dismissed. Sonamati Devi may well have regarded those defendant as no longer interested in the decree. The plaintiff knew full well the nature of the decree. He also knew full well that his suit against defendant no. 2 had been dismissed. He could have appealed against that part of the decree which dismissed his suit against defendant no. 2; but he did not do so. The plaintiff knew full well the nature of the decree. He also knew full well that his suit against defendant no. 2 had been dismissed. He could have appealed against that part of the decree which dismissed his suit against defendant no. 2; but he did not do so. He filed his cross-objection, as he was entitled to do, under the provisions of Order, 41, rule 22 when the notice of the appeal made by Sonamati Devi was served upon him. In this cross-objection also the plaintiff did not make defendant no. 2 a party. He only sought to do on the 2nd of August, 1952. By that time any right of appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit against defendant no. 2 was hopelessly barred by limitation, The question is whether in these circumstances the court should exercise its jurisdiction to permit the plaintiff to add defendant no. 2 as a party to his cross-objection could in on sense, be wider than the scope of an appeal filed by him if he had filed an appeal. On the date on which he sought to add defendant no. 2 by the device suggested by the plaintiff ? There was nothing to prevent the plaintiff in making defendant no. 2 had been dismissed, and if he wished to reopen that question because of the appeal filed by Sonamati Devi, then quite obviously it was his duty to add defendant no. 2 as a party to his cross-objection. Not having done so, should he be permitted at this late stage to add defendant no. 2 as a party to his cross-objection ? 5. Numerous decision were then cited before me as to what are the powers of a Court under order 41 rule 20 and rule 33 in the matter of adding parties. It seems to me, however, that it is unnecessary to discuss all those cases. One thing emerges clear from all of them without exception that the question of adding parties is a matter which the Court would have to decide having regard to the circumstances of a particular case and that mo party could claim it as a matter of right to have a particular person added as a party. One thing emerges clear from all of them without exception that the question of adding parties is a matter which the Court would have to decide having regard to the circumstances of a particular case and that mo party could claim it as a matter of right to have a particular person added as a party. In this respect the observations of Sir John Wallis in the decision of the privy Council in the case of V. P. R. V. Chockalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache 8 are of significance. Sir John Wallis stated; “As regards the rest of the case, owing to the plaintiff’s failure to make these defendant respondents within the time limited for filling an appeal, these appeals, so far as they are concerned, are prima facie barred by limitation, and they are entitled to hold the decrees in their favour, which as pointed out by their Lordships in a very valuable kind of which they should not lightly be deprived. “and” Giving these words their natural meaning and they cannot be disregarded-it seems impossible to say that in this case the defendants against whom these suits have been dismissed and as against whom the right of appeal has become barred, are interested in the resuit of the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the other defendants. It was for the plaintiff-appellant, who applied to the Court to exercise its power under this rule, to show what was the nature of their interest and this he has failed to do.” It will be notice that in Order 41, rule 20, the words “is interested in the result of the appeal” appear. In the present case the suit against defendants no. 2 had been dismissed. When the period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired defendant no. 2 was entitled to think that he was no longer interested in the result of the appeal, because the decree, so far as he was concerned, could no longer be appealed against. If a cross-objection was his bounden duty at the time of the filing of the cross-objection to make defendant no. 2 a party specially when he knew that his suit against defendant no. 2 had been dismissed, and the main purpose of his cross-objection would be defeated if defendant no. 2 was not a party to his cross-objection. If a cross-objection was his bounden duty at the time of the filing of the cross-objection to make defendant no. 2 a party specially when he knew that his suit against defendant no. 2 had been dismissed, and the main purpose of his cross-objection would be defeated if defendant no. 2 was not a party to his cross-objection. The plaintiff however, did not do so, and in my opinion, he cannot be allowed at this stage to ask the Court to add defendant no. 2 as a party to his cross-objection. This is not a case of bona fide mistake or something done through inadvertence. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case in which the Court should exercise ant discretion it possesses in the matter. I would accordingly dismiss in the application with costs; hearing fee, one gold mohur. Application dismissed.