JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - This appeal has been preferred against an order rejecting an application under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC for impleading the Appellant as a Defendant in the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the present purpose are that Niranjan Das, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed T.S. No. 112 of 1965 seeking declaration of title to certain properties against Respondent No. 2 and others. Respondent No. 2 is the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid suit. During the pendency of the said suit, Appellant purchased one item of property which constituted the subject-matter of suit from Defendant No. 1. After purchase, however, Appellant did not apply to be impleaded as a Defendant. The trial of the suit commenced on 21-7-1969 and continued up to 2.8.1969. On 4-8-1969, Appellant for the first time filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC to implead him as a party alleging that her vendor-Defendant No. 1 during his examination in Court made statements detrimental to her interest. She therefore wanted to be impleaded as a Defendant to safeguard her interest. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order to the effect that Appellant's application shall stand rejected, if she failed to furnish an undertaking to abide by the evidence on record without claiming any right to give fresh evidence by 4.30 P.M. Appellant failed to comply with the condition, and as such, her application for being impleaded as a party stood rejected. In this case, it is not disputed that Appellant is a transferee pendente lite from Defendant No. 1 tinder a sale deed dated 23-12-1967. The trial of the suit commenced on 21-7-1969 and was almost at the closing stage when the present application was filed by Appellant on 4.8-1969. It cannot be denied that both the Appellant and her husband knew about the pendency of the suit and the subsequent progress of the trial. 3. learned Counsel for Appellant contends that in spite of her obtaining the transfer on 23-12-1967, she did not take any steps to get impleaded till such a late stage as she was confident that her vendor Defendant No. 1 would safeguard her interest. However, when she found that Defendant No. 1 made some statement in the witness box which are detrimental to her interest, she sought to be impleaded with the object of getting her interest safeguarded. However, when she found that Defendant No. 1 made some statement in the witness box which are detrimental to her interest, she sought to be impleaded with the object of getting her interest safeguarded. For Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, it is contended that Appellant has adopted this tactics of making a belated attempt to come on record with the object of protracting the litigation and no convening explanation has been offered for her failure to take steps and get herself impleaded. It is further contended that under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC a transferee pendente lite cannot claim to he impleaded as a matter of right. It entirely depends of the discretion of the Court to allow the suit to be continued by or against the person to or upon whom interest in the subject-matter of the litigation develops by transfer inter vivos. In view of the laches on the part of Appellant in waiting till the closing stage of the Court below has rightly exercised its the application. 4. Regarding the rights of pendente lite transferee, the principle of law was explained in the decision reported in Pyli v. Varghese AIR 1956 T.C. 147 , as follows: Where the transfer inter vivos is pendente lite, the transferee has no right to insist upon being impleaded in addition to or instead of the transferor. It was a matter in the discretion of the Court, whether to implead him or not, even if the transfer had been brought to the notice of the Court and application made for bringing in the transferee by either of the parties to the transfer. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the decision reported in Mahadei Bewa and Another Vs. Keluni Dei. Impleading of a pendente lite transferee being in the discretion of the Court, the question is whether in the circumstances of the present case, the Court below was justified in rejecting the application. After obtaining the transfer on 23.12.1967, Appellant did not take any steps for about Ii years to get herself impleaded, though she and her husband were fully aware of the pendency of the suit and its progress. Even when the trial commenced, she did not apply to get herself impleaded. The explanation for taking such 'belated steps to get impleaded is not at all convincing. Even when the trial commenced, she did not apply to get herself impleaded. The explanation for taking such 'belated steps to get impleaded is not at all convincing. In the face of the laches of which the Appellant is guilty the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application of course, the undertaking as mentioned in the impugned order was not called for, but merely because such an undertaking was asked, it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion in rejecting the application was erroneous. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with suit, it is agreed that discretion in rejecting costs. Final Result : Dismissed