ORDER : The facts leading to the present revisional application are the following :- The plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 filed a suit against the defendant/ opposite parties no. 2 to 7-being Title Suit No. 67 of 1982 in the 3rd Court of Munsif at Baruipur-for declaration of his tenancy right in respect of a godown and also for mandatory injunction. His version as per his plaint is that he succeeded to the tenancy on the death of his father, Hari Bhushan Ghosh on 29.75 and Gazi Murtaza Ali, the defendant/opposite party no. 2, the landlord accepted rent from him upto August 1978 and the opposite party no. 1 took possession and kept this things in the godown. The opposite party no. 2 intending to induct opposite parties no. 3 and 4 as tenants of the disputed god own broke open the lock of the godown with the help of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 and others and trespassed into it. The opposite party no. 1 instituted a criminal case against them which is pending. Bishwanath Deb, the defendant opposite party no. 4 had been looking. after the business being carried out in the god own during the life time of Had Ghosh on a power of attorney from him and after the death of Hari Ghosh, became the tenant of the god own under the opposite party no. 2 Hence, the suit for declaration of tenancy of opposite party no. 1 and recovery of posses' ion of the disputed godown by way at mandatory injunction. Gobardhan Paul, the defendant/opposite party no.3 filed written statement and contested the suit. The petitioners applied for being added to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code stating that they had purchased the disputed godown from Gobardhan (opposite party no. 3) during the pendency of the suit. The learned Munsif rejected this application and he also rejected another application from their side asking for time to move this Court and on the very same day he decreed the suit ex-parte as none of the other defendants appeared for contesting the suit. Hence, this revisional application for setting aside the order rejecting their prayer for being impleaded as parties to the suit. 2. It is urged from the side of the plaintiff/opposite party no. Hence, this revisional application for setting aside the order rejecting their prayer for being impleaded as parties to the suit. 2. It is urged from the side of the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 that the learned Munsif was perfectly justified in passing the order and that it was within his jurisdiction to pass the order. It is also urged that an order rejecting a petition under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is appealable and that hence the present revisional application is not maintainable. 3. The petitioners filed their application under Order 1 Rule 10 and not under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code. Maintainability of the present revisional application cannot, therefore, be challenged. Considering the circumstances of the case it cannot but be concluded that the learned Munsif made a mistake by not allowing the petitioners' application under Order 1 Rule 10. The learned Munsif concluded that as legal representatives of their transferor, the petitioners would be bound by the decree passed against their transferor and that, therefore, they were not required to be added as defendant to the suit. One cannot quarrel with this proposition but while applying it to the facts of the present case the learned Munsif overlooked the fact that since their transferor was not contesting the suit not allowing their application under Order 1 Rule 10 meant total denial of any opportunity to the petitioners to make out their case before him. This obviously cannot be but a failure of justice since their case went by default for no fault of their own. Since he was not inclined to give any relief to the petitioners he could have at least given them a chance to try their luck before a superior Court. He did not do even this minimum and he proceeded with hearing and disposed of the suit with undue haste knowing full well that there would be none to contest the suit from the side of the defendant and the case of the petitioners whatever that may be would go unheard and undecided. 4. In proceeding in this way the learned Munsif must have been actuated by a desire to dispose of the suit as early as possible. 4. In proceeding in this way the learned Munsif must have been actuated by a desire to dispose of the suit as early as possible. His desire was commendable, no doubt; but what he failed to consider is that people come to the Courts for justice and not for disposal and that disposal without justice amounted to denial of justice. In the case at hand the learned Munsif not only denied the petitioners a hearing, but he made things immensely difficult for them by disposing of the suit ex-parte. The procedure adopted by him has thus ended in failure of justice and the order passed by the learned Munsif in disallowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code must, therefore, be set aside. 5. In view of what has been stated above the impugned order passed by the learned Munsif rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is hereby set aside and the said application is hereby allowed. The learned Munsif is hereby directed to add the present two petitioners as party defendants to the original suit. Since the ex-parte decree cannot stand in view of what has been stated above on an application even ahead made from any of the parties the learned Munsif shall set aside the ex-parte decree and then proceed with the hearing of the original suit on merits. The application is disposed of accordingly. Impugned order set aside; direction given.