JUDGMENT : 1. In spite of service of notice none appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. 2. Learned advocate for the Petitioner is present. Learned advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 is also present. 3. The present revisional application is against the order No. 48 dated 19th November, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Contain Title Suit No. 211 of 2006 and thereby rejecting the prayer of the present Petitioner to be added as a party in the suit. 4. Learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has purchased some share in the suit property during the pendency of the suit and as such, the Petitioner has interest in the suit property. 5. The fact being so, the Petitioner should be added in the suit as a defendant to contest the application of the plaintiff in the suit. 6. Learned advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the prayer for addition of the Petitioner in this revisional application by the Plaintiff in the suit had been earlier rejected by the learned Trial Court and no application has been filed against that order and as such the matter has reached the finality. 7. Admittedly, the present Petitioner has purchased some share in the suit property and his interest is definitely at stake in the suit. The fact that a similar petition earlier by the plaintiff in the suit had been rejected, makes no difference because, here the purchaser himself is praying for his addition as a party in the suit. Be that as it may, since the Petitioner has acquired some interest in the suit property, he should have been allowed to be added as a party in the suit to avoid multiplicity of suit and to avoid unnecessary complications. Learned Trial Court was, therefore, wrong by rejecting the prayer of the present Petitioner. The Revisional Application is, therefore, allowed on contest. The order No. 48, dated 19th November, 2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court at Contai in Title Suit No. 211 of 2006 is, therefore, set aside and the Petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 26.07.2010 before the Trial Court is hereby allowed. The Petitioner be impleaded as a Defendant in the suit. 8. The Petitioner be impleaded as a Defendant in the suit. 8. The Revisional Application, being C.O. No. 387 of 2011, is accordingly disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.