JUDGMENT : Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner/applicant (for short 'petitioner) has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'the C.P.C.'). 2. Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are : that the respondent/plaintiff (for short 'respondent') filed Civil Suit Number 91/97, which has been subjected to cross-appeal bearing CAR No. 40/02, Bijendra Singh v. Lalaram and CAR No. 42/02, Lalaram v. Bijendra Singh, which have been consolidated, and are pending hearing before the Appellate Court. The petitioner having learnt about the pendency of the appeals, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in Appeal Number 40/02, pleading that since he had been out of Station w.e.f. 1995-96, on account of his education; he learnt about the pendency of the appeal only on 14.7.2003. Since the subject matter of the appeal involves ancestral property, in which he too has right and interest, therefore, he be impleaded as a party to the appeal. The learned Court below having considered the facts, circumstances and material available on record, dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by impugned order dated 13.7.2011. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned Court below while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., has recorded a specific reason to the effect that both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, and therefore, have been consolidated for hearing. The learned Court below further observed, in the impugned order, that in Appeal Number 42/02 Lalaram v. Bijendra, the petitioner has already been impleaded as a party, being legal heir of deceased Bijendra, as 1/5 and amended cause title has also been brought on record. It has been further detailed out in Appeal Number 40/02, that an application by the appellant - Chander @ Chanderbhan, is still pending for taking on record the legal heirs of Late Shri Bijendra Singh wherein name of the petitioner appears as 1/5, being legal heir, though no order has been passed on that application. It has been further detailed out in Appeal Number 40/02, that an application by the appellant - Chander @ Chanderbhan, is still pending for taking on record the legal heirs of Late Shri Bijendra Singh wherein name of the petitioner appears as 1/5, being legal heir, though no order has been passed on that application. Be that as it may, once both the appeals have been consolidated, and the petitioner has already been impleaded as a legal heir in Appeal Number 42/02 and both the appeals are to be heard and decided together, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., is without any substance since the petitioner has already been brought on record as a party to the appeals. The learned Court below also made a formal order on the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. in Appeal Number 40/02, Bijendra Singh v. Lalaram, with a further direction to submit the amended cause title to the party concerned. The order passed by the learned Court below, in my opinion, suffers with no material illegality much less an error apparent on the face of record. 5. Having considered the facts, circumstances and material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner preferred the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in the appeal. Therefore, the question for consideration is; whether in the instant case at hand, provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. can be attracted, particularly in the face of provisions contained under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., for substitution of legal heirs of a dead person in the appeal. In my opinion, the answer would be in negative in view of the maxim "Generalia Specialibus non derogant", which implies prevalence of special provision over the general. 6. In my opinion, the answer would be in negative in view of the maxim "Generalia Specialibus non derogant", which implies prevalence of special provision over the general. 6. From a bare reading of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., would reveal that the two different and distinct provisions, deal with different eventuality and contingency i.e. under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the Court is vested with the power to add a person as a party for a limited purpose, which is entirely different from one envisaged by Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. The substantial difference is that the rights of the parties in one case would be altogether different from those of the parties in another case for the reason that a legal heir/representative has the same status and right as that of the deceased whereas under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., the rights and obligations of a person to be impleaded are in a different field and such a party would be entitled to take a plea that may be advised. 7. From the material available on record, it is evident that Late Shri Bijendra Singh, in the instant case at hand, died after the final adjudication of the civil suit, and therefore, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was preferred. Thus, in my opinion, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was not maintainable at the stage of appeal. 8. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the writ application is hereby dismissed. In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.