JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhatkia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 12-9-1975 dismissing the revision against the order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar dated 17-5-1975 rejecting the application of the revisionist for impleadment. 2. Opposite parties are absent. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Perused the record. 3. It transpires that opposite party No. 1 Bhura brought a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act impleading the other co-sharers as defendant. The revisionist gave an application to the trial court that they had obtained a sale deed from Hari Singh, defendant No. 5 of his share and, therefore, they should be impleaded as defendant. That application was rejected on the ground that they were not already recorded co-tenure holders and that the partition could be effected only between the recorded tenure-holders. The learned Additional Commissioner also upheld the same order in revision hence this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist drew my attention to order I, rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows : - "Court may strike out or add parties : - (2) The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 5. A careful perusal of the above provision would clearly signify that the court is empowered at any stage of the proceeding to make an order for impleadment of any person as defendant if it is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the instant case it is apparent that the revisionist are the vendees of defendant Hari Singh. The latter has ceased to have any interest in the land because of the transfer executed by him. In the instant case it is apparent that the revisionist are the vendees of defendant Hari Singh. The latter has ceased to have any interest in the land because of the transfer executed by him. Consequently it is the revisionist who are interested in the share of Hari Singh and, therefore it is necessary that they should have been permitted to have been impleaded as defendants. The trial court and the Additional Commissioner both failed to notice the above provision and rejected the application of the revisionist on inadequate grounds. They have, therefore, failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them by law and have passed an illegal order. Their orders, therefore, deserve to be set aside and the application of the revisionist for impleadment deserves to be allowed. 6. As the result of the above discussion, I allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by both the courts below, the application of the revisionist dated 3-1-1974 for impleadment is allowed and they are ordered to be impleaded as defendants.