ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - Natthu has filed this petition against the orders of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the Asstt. Settlement Officer (C) passed in revision and appeal respectively in proceedings arising out of objections filed u/s 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. In Khata No. 9, about 100 persons were entered in the basic year as co tenure-holders. Objections were filed by Natthu, the present Petitioner, one Turi and Ram Adhar and others opposite parties Nos. 4 to 10. Natthu claimed to be Sirdar in respect of plot Nos. 36 and 37/1 in Khata No. 9. Turi claimed Sirdari rights in plot No. 57/201. Ram Adhar and others claimed that the remaining co-sharers had mortgaged their rights in their favour and the mortgage having not been redeemed within limitation, rights of the other co sharers had extinguished. Thus they claimed to be the sole bhumidhars of all the plots in khata No. 9. The Consolidation Officer allowed all the three objections. This petition is in respect of plots Nos. 36 and 37/1 only. In respect of these plots the Consolidation Officer ordered that they be expunged from Khata No. 9 and be recorded in the name of Nathhu. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Ram Adhar and others, opposite parties Nos. 4 to 10 filed an appeal No. 368 u/s 11 of the Act before the SO (C). The remaining co-sharers filed appeal Nos. 337, 385, 380 and 676 against Ram Adhar and others challenging the finding of the Consolidation officer that their rights had been extinguished. In these appeals, Nathhu, the Petitioner, was not impleaded as a party. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (C) allowed the appeal of Ram Adhar and others and directed that the name of Natthu will be expunged and the two plots will revert to Khata No. 9 and will be entered "in the name of the parties." Their appeal in respect of plot No. 57/201 was dismissed. The remaining appeals were allowed and it was held that Ram Adhar and others were not the exclusive tenureholders of Khata No. 9 but that it belonged to all the co sharers. Against the order passed in appeal, Nathhu filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation claiming his rights in respect of plot Nos. 36 and 37/1. The remaining appeals were allowed and it was held that Ram Adhar and others were not the exclusive tenureholders of Khata No. 9 but that it belonged to all the co sharers. Against the order passed in appeal, Nathhu filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation claiming his rights in respect of plot Nos. 36 and 37/1. In this revision he had impleaded only Ram Adhar and others, opposite parties Nos. 4 to 10 but had not impleaded the remaining co sharers. At the time of hearing of the revision, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the revision on the ground that the necessary parties had not been impleaded. The Dy. Director of Consolidation accepted the preliminary objection and rejected the revision. 3. It appears that at the time of the hearing an application was filed by Nathhu before the Dy. Director of Consolidation stating that the other co-sharers were got left out from being impleaded as parties and a prayer was made that those persons be permitted to be made parties in the revision. The Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected this application on the ground that no cause had been shown why the application for impleading the other co-sharers had not been made within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision. He took the view that application for impleading the parties had to be made within the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision and thus rejected the application. Against the revisional order the present petition has been filed. 4. In the writ petition, para. 7 runs as follows : "That the other : co-sharers filed appeals Nos. 337, 385, 380 and 676 against Ram Adhar Singh and others in none of which the Petitioner was impleaded as a party nor his right to the aforesaid plots was challenged by them." No counter-affidavit has been filed to challenge this statement. If a person is not impleaded as a party in appeal and his rights are not challenged, then any order passed in such an appeal will not affect the rights of the absent party. If a person is not impleaded as a party in appeal and his rights are not challenged, then any order passed in such an appeal will not affect the rights of the absent party. Even if it be treated that it could affect the right of the absent party and on that basis it may be deemed that rights of Nathhu were affected not only by the order in appeal filed by Ram Adhar and others but also by order passed in appeals, filed by other co sharers in which he was no party the revision could not be thrown out on the ground that he had not impleaded the other co-sharers as parties especially when he had made an application for their being impleaded as parties. The Dy. Director of Consolidation did not consider at all the fact that in the appeals filed by the other co sharers Natthu was not impleaded as a party and his rights had not been challenged in those appeals. 5. The principle on which parties are added in proceedings are stated in Section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act, which runs thus : "where after the institution of a suit, a new Plaintiff or Defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party : Provided that where the Court is satisfied that the omission to include a new Plaintiff or the Defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such Plaintiff or Defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date." The revisional authority had, therefore, to consider whether the mistake in not impleading the other co sharers as parties in the revision was made in good faith or not. Even when the application for impleading the parties is made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to implead the necessary parties and to treat them as being impleaded from the date when the revision was filed provided they had not been originally impleaded due to a mistake made in good faith. 6. As the Dy. Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to implead the necessary parties and to treat them as being impleaded from the date when the revision was filed provided they had not been originally impleaded due to a mistake made in good faith. 6. As the Dy. Director of Consolidation decided the application for impleading the parties without applying the correct principles and dismissed it only on the ground that sufficient cause for not impleading the parties within the period of limitation had not been shown in the application itself, the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejecting the application has to be quashed. 7. It was for the Dy. Director of Consolidation, to consider further whether, in the circumstances of the case, the rights of Nathhu, the Applicant, had or could be deemed to be affected by the order passed in appeals filed by the other co sharers in which Natthu had not been impleaded as a party and if his rights had been affected by the order in those appeals, whether it was in the interest of justice and for the complete decision of the controversy between the parties that co-sharers be impleaded as parties in revision. 8. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 7 to 10, however, relying on the decision in Kunwar Surjit Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1966 AWR 51 has contended that it was the duty of the Applicant to implead all the necessary parties in the revision and as he failed to do so, the revision was not maintainable. But from the decision in the case of Kunwar Surjit Singh (supra) it does not appear that in the appeal against which the revision was filed the Applicant had not been impleaded. It is also not clear if any application for impleading the parties had been made or not. In the present case the other co-shares had not impleaded Natthu as a party in their appeals and Nathhu had, in the Revision, made an application for impleading those co-sharers as parties to the revision. The case of Kr. Surjit Singh is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 9. In the result the petition is allowed. The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dismissing the Petitioner's application for impleading the co-sharers as parties to the revision and the order dismissing the revision itself are set aside and the Dy. The case of Kr. Surjit Singh is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 9. In the result the petition is allowed. The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dismissing the Petitioner's application for impleading the co-sharers as parties to the revision and the order dismissing the revision itself are set aside and the Dy. Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the application and the revision in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.