JUDGMENT 1. .:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 19th May, 2008 by which the the trial court impleaded applicant Bhanwarlal as party defendant in the suit by allowing the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. 3. The dispute has chequered history as the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the lease deed dated 9.1.1985 and decree dated 2nd June, 1994 wherein during the pendency of the suit lease deed was executed by defendant Hanuman Bux in favour of the applicant on 10th Dec., 2007. The applicant claimed that he is entitled to become party in the suit as there is collusion between Hanuman Bux defendant and the plaintiff and they want to oust the applicant Bhanwarlal. After considering facts in detail, the trial court held that applicant deserves to be impleaded as party- defendant. 4. According to learned counsel for the appellants, there will be no end to the litigation in case any person who wants to delay the proceedings is permitted to execute any conveyance deed or lease deed to create third party right, interest and by this, the suit proceedings will revert back to the re-trial provided the newly added party allowed to take its own pleas. According to learned counsel for the appellants this Court in the case of Javid Ali & Anr v. Kundan Mal & Ors reported in RLW 1998 (1) Raj 551 held that subsequent transferee has a right to continue the dispute or to contest the suit from the date on which he submitted application. He cannot claim any right prior to date of the filing of the suit. This court also held that if the seller has given up his right to lead evidence in the suit, subsequent purchaser had no right to lead evidence. It is also submitted that the plaintiff's suit is at the stage of evidence, therefore, newly added defendant cannot file the written statement after the appellant's plea against his impleading as party in the suit is not accepted by this Court. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. It is also submitted that the plaintiff's suit is at the stage of evidence, therefore, newly added defendant cannot file the written statement after the appellant's plea against his impleading as party in the suit is not accepted by this Court. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. It is true that under Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code a person becoming party steps in the shoes of the vendor transferee and he is bound by all the acts and actions of his vendor transferee. In this case, there are allegations of collusion and fraud and those facts have been taken note of by the trial court. The applicant not only sought relief under Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code but also under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code and it appears from the facts of the case that there is direct conflict of interest created subsequent by alleged lease deed dated 10th Dec., 2007 as according to the plaintiff himself defendant Hanuman Bux himself cancelled the lease deed dated 10th Dec., 2007 and also gave consent for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, substantially, the application of the applicant Bhanwar Lal can be treated to be an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code also. 6. In view of the above reasons, the applicant Bhanwar Lal was rightly impleaded as party in the suit. He gets the right to contest the suit also. 7. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there will be no end of litigation is concerned, that certainly requires serious consideration by the court. Normally, if the parties enter into any transaction with respect to movable property during the pendency of the suit, it may not be bona fide transaction and there is every possibility that such type of acts may be to delay the trial of the suit. Normally, if the parties enter into any transaction with respect to movable property during the pendency of the suit, it may not be bona fide transaction and there is every possibility that such type of acts may be to delay the trial of the suit. The court has ample power to reject and dismiss the application of subsequent purchaser, who purchased the property during trial of the suit or claims that he got devolution interest by voluntary act of the defendant in his favour, the court can certainly see over all circumstances before impleading the party in the suit and that can take full care of progress of the suit and when there is allegation of malafide transaction during the pendency of the suit, affecting right, interest in the property or devolution of interest by one party or litigation in favour of the party and may curb that tendancy. 8. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and it is expected to decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******