JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant with a prayer that the Order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Abu Road whereby the learned Additional Dist. Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents who are L.Rs. of deceased Amba Lal under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.0 and substituted the respondents as plaintiffs in the capacity as LRs. of the deceased Ambalal be quashed and set aside. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That the deceased Amea Lal filed a suit against the defendant petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent and that suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Pali through judgment and decree dated 15.10.91. (ii) Against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.91, the deceased Amba Lal filed a first appeal before the learned Dist. judge, Sirohi on 12.2.1992 which was later on transferred to the court of Additional Dist. Judge, Abu Road. (iii) During pendency of that appeal. the deceased Amba Lal died on 27.11.1995 and on 22.2.1996, an application was moved on behalf of the respondents in the capacity as LRs. of the deceased Amba Lal stating that they may be substituted in place of the deceased Amba Lal as his L.Rs. That application was contested by the present defendant-petitioner by filing reply stating that no doubt they were LRs. of deceased Arnba Lal. but they had no interest in the property in dispute as in respect of the disputed property a trust was created on 20.12.93 by the deceased and the same was registered and therefore, if any person should be substituted in place of deceased Amba Lal, then they were the trustees and not the present respondents. (iv) That the learned Additional Dist. Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the application of the present respondents-plaintiffs inter alia holding that That the appeal as well as suit was filed by the deceased Amba Lal in his personal capacity and the trust-deed as alleged was created on 20.12.1993 and the deceased died on 27.11.95 and during pendency of the appeal nothing was mentioned about the trust-deed and since the suit as well as appeal was filed by Amba Lal in personal capacity and therefore, his L.Rs. should be taken on record. should be taken on record. However, it was further observed that if the trustees of that trust intended to become party in that appeal, for that they could take appropriate action separately. (v) This order dated 20.2.1997 has been challenged in this revision petition. 3. In this revision petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that the trust-deed in respect of the property in question was got registered on 20.12.1993 and after death of the deceased, only the trustees could have maintained the appeal and in absence of that, the appeal should have been treated as abated as present LRs. could not be taken on record because they had no interest in the property in dispute after creation of trust-deed dated 20.12.1993.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has supported the order dated 20.2.1997 and submitted that the same s based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard and perused the case file. 5. It may be stated here that at page 2 of the trust-deed, there is mention of the fact that in respect of the property of the trust, there are 3 tenants and out of them one is the present petitioner-defendant. It has further been mentioned in the trust-deed that since the suit had already filed against the present petitioner-defendant for eviction of the suit premises. therefore, this trust-deed would have no effect on that suit and when this being the position to say that present LRs could not have been taken on record because of creation of the trust-deed cannot be accepted because of the simple reason that in the trust-deed dated 20.12.2003, the deceased had himself mentioned the fact that this trust-deed would have no nexus with the suit filed against the present petitioner-defendant, meaning thereby that the property in dispute which is in the occupation of the defendant-petitioner as tenant had been saved and from this point of view, the impugned order dated 20.2.1997 cannot be said to be suffering from any basic infirmity or illegality. Apart from this. the learned Additional Sessions has given option that if the trustees intended to become party in that appeal, they could do so. 6. Apart from this. the learned Additional Sessions has given option that if the trustees intended to become party in that appeal, they could do so. 6. If the present case is examined on the point that the trustees are assignees, from that point of view also, it is not necessary to implead them as party as a bare perusal of Rule 10ORDER22 C.P.C. reveals that they are enabling provisions and it is not obligatory that an assignee or a person in whose favour an interest is created or devolved during the pendency of suit or the appeal as the case may be must necessarily be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. 7. A reading of the two provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. make it amply clear that under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C., if the interest is assigned of the subject matter of the suit, the assignee may apply to be impleaded as a party even at an appellate stage and if a person is vitally interest in the litigation and the ultimate decree which may be passed in the said litigation may vitally affect his rights, he may apply to be added as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.PC. However, the Court, while considering the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. or under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. has to exercise the discretion judicially. 8. In my opinion, the findings given by the learned Additional Dist. Judge that if the Trustees wanted to become a party, they could do so are absolutely within the framework of law and cannot be said to be erroneous and suffering from basic infirmity or illegality. Furthermore, if the present LRs (respondents) of the deceased (Ambalal) do not insist for impleading trustees as party, meaning thereby that they take the obvious risk on the point whether the appeal was being properly conducted by them or not in absence of taking the trustees on record and from this point of view also, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse and bad in law. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Abu Road does not require any interference by this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******