JUDGEMENT 1. An application has been filed by the respondents, who are plaintiffs in the Court below, for vacating the stay granted by this Court. 2. In my view, there was no point in vacating the stay and keeping the application pending and, therefore, with consent of parties the matter was heard for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. The defendants are petitioners before this Court and have challenged the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the Sub- Judge-lll, Banka in Title Suit No. 25/82. By the said order, the Trial Court has directed the plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, to implead two persons as defendants on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. The facts leading to this case are noted hereunder. 4. In 1982 (28 years back) plaintiffs/ respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, if found, out of possession, restoration thereof in respect of certain lands as against the defendants. Defendants immediately filed their written statement and one of the objections they have taken was that the suit ought to fail because of non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants, who are petitioners before this Court, clearly pleaded that the suit cannot proceed in absence of two persons named in the written statement. Thus, plaintiffs were put to notice in 1982 itself about the necessity of these two persons for adding their name in the suit as defendants.appears that subsequently plaintiffs sought an amendment to the plaint claiming certain additional reliefs. In response thereto, the defendants again objected and protested that these additional reliefs could not be granted in absence of two other persons, who were necessary parties to the suit. Again the plaintiffs, having been put to notice, chose not to add them as parties and took their chance in the trial. An issue was also framed in this regards. The case went to trial and evidence closed. Once argument started, obviously the plaintiffs realized the difficulty. At this late stage after two and half decades, the Trial Court comes to rescue of the plaintiffs in purported exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Trial Court in term of Order 1. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure without realizing the facts as noted above, the Court bails out the plaintiffs by ordering addition of those very two persons as defendants on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure without realizing the facts as noted above, the Court bails out the plaintiffs by ordering addition of those very two persons as defendants on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. It is this order that is challenged because as the defendants would submit that it would revert the clock 28 years back, as upon addition of these two defendants, the suit will begin once again de novo. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents, who have all appeared, it is submitted that the Court had jurisdiction to order addition of parties at any stage in interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation it having done so this Court should not interfere. 6. I am afraid, I cannot accept the plea of plaintiffs/respondents. One has to keep in mind that interest of justice is not a one way traffic. It has to flow from both sides. It is not a case where on realization of a mistake a correction is being done, which was inadvertently left out. Here right from the first day the petitioners raised this objection to which the plaintiffs pay no heed. Plaintiffs were twice put to notice of this fact before the trial begun but they chose to ignore it. Specific issue was framed in this regards when the parties went to trial. Thus, where the parties were already noticed and it chose to ignore the same then it is not open to the Court to come to the rescue of the parties and bail it out. The parties took a conscious decision and a contemplated risk and must pay for its consequences. 7. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that if the order of the Court is allowed to stand it cures a defect which would have rendered the suit liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and it would bail out the plaintiffs, who had taken a calculated risk after due notice and were surely to lose. That cannot be permitted. Even if application was made by the plaintiffs at this belated stage, surely, the Trial Court would have rejected the same. If that be so then how the Trial Court could do what the plaintiffs were precluded to do. 8. That cannot be permitted. Even if application was made by the plaintiffs at this belated stage, surely, the Trial Court would have rejected the same. If that be so then how the Trial Court could do what the plaintiffs were precluded to do. 8. In that view of the matter, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the order of the Trial Court to stand. The Trial Court cannot be permitted to correct a fatal error of a party. The order of the Trial Court is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the hearing of the matter expeditiously preferable within one month from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the civil revision application is allowed.