JUDGMENT 1. - All these revisions were presented before this Court on 12.5.95 on which notices were issued to the defendant opposite parties to show cause why the revision petition should not be admitted. 2. According to the office report, service is complete. Irrespective of service, the defendant opposite parties had not chosen to appear before this Court today. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I propose to decide these revisions on merits after hearing the learned counsel Shri G.K. Vyas appearing on behalf of the revisionists. 4. Out of aforesaid four revisions three have been filed against the order dated 27.4.1995 and the revision No: 321/95 has been filed against the order dated 6.5.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bikaner rejecting the impleadment application moved under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC only on the ground that the application for impleadment was made at a belated stage after expiry of ten months, therefore, all the impleadment applications were refused. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists at length and critically gone through the orders impugned. 6. A close scrutiny of the Order I Rule 10(2) CPC indicates that the application under the aforesaid section can be moved at any stage of the proceeding either upon or without the application of either party and same should be allowed on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just. 7. The judicial pronouncements consistently ruled that within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC there can be an order for impleadment for those who are necessary party, those who are formal parties and those who are proper parties. 8. The learned trial Court instead of looking into the relevant provisions refused the applications for impleadment on the ground of limitation while Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC clearly indicates that the application or suo motu order under this Rule can be passed at any stage of the proceedings, therefore, in my considered opinion, rejection of impleadment application by the learned trial Court has been passed on non-existent ground. 9. In my humble opinion for the impleadment application moved under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC it cannot be said that the claim of the parties who proposed to be impleaded do not make them proper party if not necessary party to the suit. 9. In my humble opinion for the impleadment application moved under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC it cannot be said that the claim of the parties who proposed to be impleaded do not make them proper party if not necessary party to the suit. As observed earlier part of the judgment formal parties and proper parties are also to be impleaded within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC if their presence before the Court concerned to be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit before it. 10. In absence of any finding recorded by the learned trial Court to the effect that the presence of persons who are proposed to be impleaded as a party, their presence is not needed to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to reject the application for impleadment. 11. In my considered opinion in the present case there is no reason why the proposed persons should not be impleaded in such a situation to ensure an effective adjudication of the points in controversy of the suit even if they are treated to be proper party or even if they are treated to be formal party to the suit. 12. Irrespective of service of notices upon the defendants opposite parties, they have not chosen to appear to oppose these revisions. Consequently, all these revisions are allowed. The applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are allowed and persons proposed to be impleaded are directed to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The learned trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.Since the defendant opposite parties had not opposed these revisions by appearing before this Court at the time of hearing, these revisions are allowed without costs. Learned trial Court is directed to issue notices to the defendants for their appearance before the trial Court on 30.8.1995. The trial Court will proceed with the trial of the suit after ensuring the attendance of the defendants.Revision petition allowed. *******