Short Note : During the pendency of this suit, non applicant No.10 Mishrilal applied on 28-1-74 as intervener under Order 1, rule 10 CPC., alleging that on 7-12-73, non-applicant No.1, Gulabbai has entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land in suit to him by receiving Rs.9,500/- and that under Order 22, rule 10, CPC, he is entitled to be clothed with the equity of the purchaser and, as such, in order to avoid any further prejudice to his rights, applied for being impleaded as a party. The trial Court, by the impugned order ordered non-applicant No.10 Mishrilal to be impleaded as party to the suit. Hence this revision. Held : It is apparent from the record that even according to N.A. No.10 Mishrilal, he entered into the contract to purchase the suit property from N.A No.1 Gulabbai after the institution of the present suit and the principle of lis pendens would fully apply to the present case. According to section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It dose not by itself create any interest in or charge on such property. The rights of Mlshrilal, if any, under the said alleged agreement would depend upon the decision of the suit provided N.A.No.1 Gulabbai succeeds in obtaining the reliefs claimed in the suit. Considering the facts of the case stated above, there has been no such assignment, creation or devolution of any interest in favour of non-applicant No 10 Mishrilal and, consequently, the provision under O.22, R.10 CPC. is not attracted in the present case. Similarly, the provisions of Order I, rule 10, CPC., are also not attracted in the present case. Merely because non-applicant No.1 Gulabbai has entered into an agreement to sell the property, viz, the suit land, which admittedly is not in her possession, to non-applicant No.10 Mishrilal during the pendency of the suit and because he might have paid Some consideration to her as alleged by him, that will not in any way mean that he has got a right to be substituted or added as a party to the suit. The learned Judge had, no doubt, the discretion to allow or disallow any such application; but he must exercise it judicially and properly in accordance with law, and he must apply his mind in order to find out whether the prayer made therein deserves to be allowed, which he has failed to do in the present case and has, thus, acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if Mishrilal non-applicant No.10 is not added as a party, it will not result in failure of justice, nor his presence as a party is material for determining the controversy in the suit. 1977 MPLJ Note 114 distinguished. Revision allowed.