JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This references has made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 16th September 1989 Under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In the trial court a suit was filed by the opposite party under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The revisionist filed application that he is purchaser of the share of one of the defendants Hari Ram, therefore, he should be also allowed to be impleaded as party. This application was rejected on 11-6-1987. Revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has recommended the revision to be allowed on the ground that he is necessary party. 3. No objection has been filed by any party. However the revisionist is present and notices were sent to the opposite parties which are served on fixation. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. 4. I agree with recommendation of he learned Additional Commissioner that the revisionists are the purchaser of the whole of the share of one of the defendants, therefore, he should be impleaded as party to pairvi in the suit to safeguard his interest. 5. Reference is accepted and the order of the trial court is set aside and the revisionist is allowed to pairvi the case.