JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C. M. No. 16185-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : 2. Plaintiff no.1 Rohtash Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, thereby allowing application Annexure P-1 moved by Rajesh and Yogesh (respondents no.5 and 6 herein) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for impleading them as party to the suit, which has been instituted by the petitioner and proforma respondents no.7 to 11 against respondents no.1 to 4 as defendants. 3. Respondents no.5 and 6, in their application Annexure P-1, pleaded that they have purchased the disputed land from defendant-respondent no.4 – Smt. Chander Kala vide sale deed dated 27.12.2007 and it was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but still respondents no.5 and 6 herein were not impleaded as party to the suit. They learnt of the pendency of the suit on 21.10.2011, when counsel for plaintiffs disclosed about pendency of the suit in proceedings for correction of khasra girdawari. Thereupon, this application was filed. The said application has been allowed by the trial court vide order Annexure P-2, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was filed belatedly because respondents no.5 and 6 had allegedly purchased the land from defendant no.4 vide sale deed dated 27.12.2007, whereas application Annexure P-1 was moved on 10.12.2011 i.e. after four years. It was also contended that respondents no.5 and 6, being purchasers pendente lite, cannot be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. It is correct that purchasers pendente lite are not entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, they are entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. 6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. It is correct that purchasers pendente lite are not entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, they are entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, impleadment of respondents no.5 and 6 as party to the suit shall be deemed to be under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and not under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but for this reason, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by respondents no.5 and 6 is not required to be dismissed merely because wrong provision of law has been mentioned. 7. It may be mentioned that vendor – defendant no.4 has already been proceeded ex-parte in the suit, apparently because she is left with no interest in the fate of the suit. There is, therefore, nobody to protect the interest of respondents no.5 and 6/vendees. Their impleadment to the suit is, therefore, in the interest of justice, so that they may defend the suit in accordance with law. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------