Short Note : 1. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this revision application are these: On 9-10 1974 the non-applicant Rajmal, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, instituted a suit against the applicant Motisingh and non-applicant No.2 Roopsingh in respect of certain property and sought a declaration of its ownership, its possession, mesne profits and an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The suit was resisted by defendants Motisingh and Roopsingh. While evidence was being recorded Rajmal died on 17-2-1977. Subsequent upon his death his legal representatives, submitted an application for being brought an record as legal representatives of the deceased Rajmal. The non-applicant Sitaram also submitted an application on 1-4-1977, purporting to be under Order 1, rule 10 and section 151, CPC. In this application he alleged that on 28-5-1969 the suit property was sold by the public auction by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies under the Cooperative Societies Act, and at this public auction he had purchased the suit property, Since the date of the said auction, according to non-applicant Sitaram, he was in its possession as the rightful owner. He accordingly prayed that he may also be joined as a plaintiff in the said suit instituted by Rajmal. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Held: From the facts of the case as stated above it is clear that the provisions of Order 22, rule 10, CPC do not apply to this case as it is not a case of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit. The non-applicant Sitaram claims title to the suit property which be is said to have acquired before the suit was instituted on 9-10-1974. Learned counsel for the non-applicant Sitaram contended that any decision given in the suit instituted by Rajmal against the defendants Motisingh and Roopsingh will effect his title which he had acquired at the public auction on 28-5-1969. I fail to understand as to how the decision in this suit instituted by Rajmal is going to decide the validity or otherwise of the title acquired by non-applicant Sitaram at the aforesaid public auction in which he had purchased the suit property on 28-5-1969. 2. I fail to understand as to how the decision in this suit instituted by Rajmal is going to decide the validity or otherwise of the title acquired by non-applicant Sitaram at the aforesaid public auction in which he had purchased the suit property on 28-5-1969. 2. The provisions of the Order I, Rule 10 CPC also do not in may opinion justify the application made by the non-applicant Sitaram. The provisions relevant on the subject are contained in sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of Order I, CPC in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit between Rajmal and defendants Motisingh and Roopsingh the presence of the non-applicant Sitaram is not at all necessary. Even if Rajmal succeeds in the suit instituted by him, that would not affect the non-applicant Sitaram's title to the suit property as he does not claim to have acquired any title from Rajmal subsequent to the institution of the suit. Even if Rajmal does not succeed and the suit is dismissed as against Motisingh and Roopsingh, that also would not affect the non-applicant Sitaram's claim over the suit property as admittedly he does not claim his title through the defendants Motisingh and Roopsingh. If the application made by the non-applicant Sitaram is allowed, then it would result in a triangular contest over the suit property between (1) plaintiff Rajmal (2) defendants Motisingh and Roopsingh and (3) the non-applicant Sitaram. This is not what is contemplated by Order I, rule 10, CPC. Revision allowed.