Judgment Dharampal Sinha, J. 1. Heard counsel of both sides on the petitions at flags X and Y. 2. In the petition at flag X filed under Sec. 146 read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, two persons-Brajesh Kumar and Vikash Kumar, have made prayer for being added as additional petitioners in this revision petition on the ground that they are transferees from the original petitioner of this revision petition of the interest in the property with regard to which this proceeding relates. 3. Accordingly to the submission, the petitioner is now vitally interested in the result of this revision petition and the original petitioner, who had sold his interest in the concerned property, has ceased to have interest in prosecuting this revision petition. So they should be added. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhury V/s. Vishnu Hari Patil and Ors. reported in -- wherein it was observed that the position of a transferee interest pendente lite is somewhat similar to the position of an heir on the death of the original petitioner and such transferees should, if they want to intervene in the proceeding, be added even in the execution proceeding. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in revision petition such transferees cannot be added and he has relied on the decision of the case of Bank of Baroda V/s. RM. Patwa, reported in A.I.R. 1996 SC 1642. A perusal of this decision, however, shows that in that case, J. Dr. had made a prayer for adjustment of dues with the 3rd party. In that context it was held, the third party could not be allowed to be added. Situation in the instant case is entirely different and I do not think that ratio of that decision can be of any avail to the opposite parties. 5. Previously in this case, this Court has observed in the order dated 3.9.1996 when prayer had been made for stay of delivery of possession, that as she has ceased to have any locus standi after the transfer of her interest in the property with regard to which stay of delivery of possession was sought. 6. 5. Previously in this case, this Court has observed in the order dated 3.9.1996 when prayer had been made for stay of delivery of possession, that as she has ceased to have any locus standi after the transfer of her interest in the property with regard to which stay of delivery of possession was sought. 6. Considering all these, I am of the opinion that the petition at flag X is fit to allowed and the petitioners are directed to be added as additional petitioner. 7. As regards the second petition at flag Y which had been filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in which prayer has been made for stay of delivery of possession in Ex. case No. 3 of 1995 which is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Begusarai, the submission is that in the decree, that has been passed, there was no relief granted for delivery of possession yet the Dr. Hr. Opposite parties herein have made prayer for delivery of possession. This objection can be raised primarily before the execution court. This revision petition is directed against an appellate order upholding the decision of the trial court rejecting a petition, that had been filed by the original petitioner-J. Dr. under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte order which had been passed on 5.91988 in some title suit. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (newly added) submitted that they may be allowed to withdraw the petition at flag Y with liberty to make such prayer before the court concerned. 9. The petition at flag Y is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise any objection regarding delivery of possession before the concerned court and the court concern shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.