JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand SoodJ (Oral):- This petition has been filed by judgment debtor for impleading Subhadra Devi (Auction Purchaser) as party to the revision petition filed by the petitioner-II) 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts may be noticed. 3. It appears, decree holder Bank, respondent herein filed a suit for the recovery of rupees 1, 00,904.05 paise with future interest at the rate of 13% per annum. This suit was decree by the learned District Judge, Solan on September 20, 1990. An execution petition was filed by the decree holder Bank to recover rupees 1.71.980.73 paise with cost of rupees 6582.60 paise. In the execution, the property of the judgment debtor-petitioner was attached and sold in auction on March 10, 1997. The entire property of the judgment debtor was sold for rupees 2 lakhs in favour of Subhadra Devi, auction purchaser. The petitioner filed objections before the Executing court but the objections were dismissed by the learned District Judge. Solan on November 6, 1997. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this court challenging the rejection of his objections. The main objection of the petitioner was that his land measuring 22-10-13 bighas was sold for rupees 2 lakhs, whereas, the value of the property was not less than rupees twenty four lacs. Even the Revenue Officer assessed the value of the land at rupees 68,964/- per bigha. Thus the value of the property, even according to the revenue assessment, comes to over rupees 16 lacs, whereas it was sold for a paltry sum of rupees 2 lakhs to the auction purchaser who is none else but the daughter of Diwakar Dutt, respondent No.2. Diwakar Dutt happened to be surety for the repaymet of the loan and is Judgment Debtor No.2. It was pleaded that the petitioner gave in writing to Naib Tehsildar at the time of auction that the land of the decree holder may be auctioned in parcels so as to satisfy the decree but his request was not accepted which was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. According to the petitioner, only Diwakar Dutt Sharma and his close family members participated in the bid. 4. It appears, a notice on the objections filed by the petitioner was sent to Smt. Subhadra Devi, auction purchaser by the learned District Judge, Solan. However, her name was not reflected in the memo of (?) 5. According to the petitioner, only Diwakar Dutt Sharma and his close family members participated in the bid. 4. It appears, a notice on the objections filed by the petitioner was sent to Smt. Subhadra Devi, auction purchaser by the learned District Judge, Solan. However, her name was not reflected in the memo of (?) 5. This application is opposed both by Diwakar Dutt Sharma and subhead Devi on the grounds that sale was confirmed on November 6, 1997. Subhadra Devi, the auction purchaser, was not added as respondent within the period limited by law, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. 6. In rejoinder, the petitioner maintained that tl e auction purchaser could not be impleaded in the revision petition due to inadvertence for the reason that her name did not appear in the memo of parties of the impugned order. It was further stated that there is no period of limitation prescribed to implead auction purchaser as party and, therefore, it can not be said that revision is beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioner-applicant, auction purchaser is necessary party in the revision petition which arises out of the impugned orders and no effective orders can be passed without purchase as party in the revision petition. 7. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.D. Verma, and learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Romesh Verma for respondent No.2 and the auction purchaser. 8. Contention of Mr. Verma learned Senior Counsel is that a legal right has accrued in favour of the auction purchaser and this application for addition of the name of auction purchaser in this revision petition at this belated stage cannot be permitted. He also contended that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not invokable by the petitioner to add the auction purchaser particularly when petitioner was aware that auction purchaser was a party before the District Judge notwithstanding the fact that the name of the auction purchaser did not appear in the memorandum revision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: "10. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: "10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff-(l) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the na"me of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.- 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 or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended. Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such matter as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the services 9. It may be seen that sub-rule (1) and (3) deals with the substitution and addition of the plaintiff. Sub-rule (2), (4) and (5) deal with addition or striking of the parties whether plaintiff or defendant. It may be seen that in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 the Court can add or delete any party at any stage of the proceedings. It may be seen that sub-rule (1) and (3) deals with the substitution and addition of the plaintiff. Sub-rule (2), (4) and (5) deal with addition or striking of the parties whether plaintiff or defendant. It may be seen that in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 the Court can add or delete any party at any stage of the proceedings. There is no scope of dispute that appeal is a continuation of proceedings and party can be added even at an appellate stage. Similarly, revision is also commutation of proceedings from the Court out of whose order, the revision petition arises. Therefore, in my opinion, parties can be added or deleted in revision petition for the complete and effective adjudication of the question involved. Even if provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are strictly not invocable, the Court has inherent power to add necessary or proper party at any stage. 10. In the present case, the perusal of the impugned order shows that by mistake of the Court, auction purchaser was not shown in the array of the respondents though notice was issued to the auction purchaser and auction purchaser was represented by the counsel during the hearing of the objections of the petitioner-judgment debtor. 11. In Sm. Saila Bala Dassi v. Sm. Nirmaia Sundari Dassi & Anr, AIR 1958 S.C. 394, it was observed that the Court can, "if necessary take action suo motu either under 0.1, R.10 or in its inherent jurisdiction......." to add respondent in the appeal. 12. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Conugunta Subbarayudu v. Eluri Brahmandan and others AIR 1970 Andhra Pradesh 211 relying upon reliving upon United Provinces v. Atiqua Begum & Ors. AIR 1941 Federal Court 16 and AIR 1959 Punjab 277 held that apart from the provisions of Order 41 rule 20 C.P.C. the appellate court has inherenet power to permit parties to add to appeal in suitable cases. 13. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Mohini Mohan Dawan v. Sris Chandra Hati & ors. AIR 1941 Federal Court 16 and AIR 1959 Punjab 277 held that apart from the provisions of Order 41 rule 20 C.P.C. the appellate court has inherenet power to permit parties to add to appeal in suitable cases. 13. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Mohini Mohan Dawan v. Sris Chandra Hati & ors. AIR 1978 Calcutta 434, considering the power and scope of the Courts in adding parties, held that court is invested with special and wide powers under Order 41 Rule 20, Order 1 Rule 1 read with Section 107 and Section 151, C.P.C. for doing proper and adequate justice between the parties avoiding nonsensical and meaningless technicalities. 14. Mr. Ashwani Kumar sharma referred to E, Madhavi Amma & Ors. v. E. Indusekharan & Ors. AIR 1992 Kerala 390. In that wose. One of the defendants-respondents was not impleaded in the appeal due to bonafide mistake on the part of the counsel. The said defendant-respondent died. Her legal representatives were sought to be impleaded. The application was opposed on the ground that appeal as constituted was defective. It was contended that in such a situation is Order 41 Rule 20 of the code oSCivil Procedure cannot be invoked. In this context, it was observed: .."the court can and ought to look outside 0.41, R.20 of the Civil P.C. to see whether there is any power in the Court to implead the deceased first defendant and on her death her legal representatives in the above appeal. That such a power can be exercised by an appellate Court is clear from the decision of the Federal Court reported in United Provincies v. Atiqa Begum, Air 1941 FC 16, where discussing the power of the Court to pass the order for imp leading, Mr. Justice Sulaiman observed: "It is contended before us that the powers of an appellate court are restricted within the limits imposed by 0.41, Rule 20, and that the same restriction is imposed on a Court hearing a second appeal under 0.42, Civil P.C. That rule no doubt permits of making a person respondent, who was a party to the suit in the original Court, and who has not been made a party to the appeal, but is interested in the result of the appeal. Obviously, this rule would not apply to the present case. Obviously, this rule would not apply to the present case. But the language of the rule does not show that it is exclusive or exhaustive so as to deprive a Court of any inherent power which it may possess and can exercise in special circumstances, and which has been saved by S.151, Civil P.C. As the Honble Supreme court has observed in Mano-har Lai v. Seth Him Lai, AIR 1962 SC 527, in areas not specifically covered by the provisions of the Code, the inherent power of the Court is not taken away. If that be so, as observed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Sulaiman, the Appellate court can in a case of this nature travel outside 0.41, R.20 of the civil P.C. in cases not covered by that rule and exercise its discretion to implead the omitted party or as in this case the legal representatives of the omitted party to the appeal and there is nothing in the decision q£ the Privy Council or of the Full bench of this Court referred to earlier which can stand in the way of such an exercise of power". (Emphasis supplied). 15. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, relying upon Ch. Surat Singh (Dead) & Ors v. Manohar Lai & Ors 1971 (3) Supreme Court Cases 889, contended that the petitioner was careless in filing the present wrongs. In Surat Singh, in appeal before the High Court, Surat Singh died and his legal representatives including Lt. Col. Yadav, his son were brought on record. High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. An appeal was brought against the decision of the High Court. In that appeal. Col. Ya Jav was not made a party. The explanation was that judgment of the High Court did not show clearly that Lt. Col. Yadav was party to the appeal. It was found that the fact that Lt. Col. Yadav was made party in the appeal was in the knowledge of the appellant. Even certified copy of the order of the High Court clearly showed that Lt. Col. Yadav was represented by a Counsel. It is in this context, it was held that application could not be allowed to implead Lt. Col. Yadav as respondent at a highly belaed stage. In that case, the certified copy of the memorandum of appeal clearly showed name of Lt. Col. Yadav who was represented by Counsel. Col. Yadav was represented by a Counsel. It is in this context, it was held that application could not be allowed to implead Lt. Col. Yadav as respondent at a highly belaed stage. In that case, the certified copy of the memorandum of appeal clearly showed name of Lt. Col. Yadav who was represented by Counsel. It was only in the decree prepared by the High Court that name of Lt. Col. Yadav as one of the parties to the appeal was not shown. 16. The facts of Surat Singh are clearly distinquishable. In the present case, the memorandum. of appeal does not show auction purchaser as party. This apart, this application was filed immediately after it was noticed that auction purchaser was not impleaded as party. In fact, the revision petition was filed in the High Court on March 3, 1998 and the application for imp leading auction purchaser as party was filed on June 2, 1998. There is no inordinate delay in filing of the present application. 17. Mr. Verma, learned Senior counsel also refers to Anokhe Lai v. Radha mohan Bansal & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 257. In that case, when the revision petition came up for hearing before the High Court no suit was pending yet order to implead third person as party was passed. In this background it was observed that the revision petition in the circumstances ought to have been dismissed as infructuous. 18. Mr. Verma, relying upon Ms C. Doctor and compuny Ltd & Anr. v. Ms. Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd., AIR 1995 Allahabad 19 also raisedjjbjection that the present petition is barred by the period of limitatrorrahd, therefore, cannot be allowed. Ratio of that case is not applicable in the facts of this case. That was a case where an application in a civil suit to add necessary party was filed when suit had already become barred by limitation. That case of no assistance to the respondent. 19. The Apex court in State of kerala v. Sridevi & Ors. (2000) 9 Supreme court Cases 168 held that there is no specified period of limitation for making an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure and if at all any application is necessary, the same could be filed within three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 20. (2000) 9 Supreme court Cases 168 held that there is no specified period of limitation for making an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure and if at all any application is necessary, the same could be filed within three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 20. I have already observed that even if the provisions of order 1 Rule 10 does not cover the present application, the Court has inherent powers under Section 151 to add party for the ends of justice. Every Court is constituted for the purpose of doing justice in accordance with law and must be deemed to possess, in corollary, necessary powers to do right and undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. Section 151 furnishes legislative recognition of established principles that every court has inherent powers to act exdebitio justitiae, that is, to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the court exists or prevent the abuse of the process of the court. 21. This is not to say that Court can exercise its inherent powers even where there is express provision of law applicable to the case. In the present case there is no such express provision of law and, therefore, the Court has the inherent power to allow addition of a necessary party which by bonafide mistake could not be added in the revision petition. 22. To conclude, I am satisfied that it was by bonafide mistake that the name of the auction purchaser was not added in the present petition as his name was not reflected in the impugned order. The petitioner was prompt in filing an application for the addition of the auction purchaser as respondent the moment it was brought to the notice that the revision petition in the absence of auction purchaser may not be validly constituted. 23. In result, the petition is allowed. The name of the auction purchaser Smt. Subhadra Devi be added as respondent No.3 in the array of the respondents. Corrected memo of parties shall be filed within two weeks.