JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. – The plaintiff/applicants have approached this Court assailing the order passed by the courts below whereby applications filed by respondent nos. 8 and 9 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was allowed being subsequent purchasers of the suit property. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier an application under Order 22, Rule 10 filed by the respondents was rejected for the reason that the application was filed after an order was passed by the trial court for delivery of judgment. The court below placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kmmar and others ( AIR 1964 SC 993 ). Thereafter, respondent (8 & 9) filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 which was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the ratio of Arjun Singh's case (supra) would apply, therefore, the court below committed an error in entertaining the application under Order 1, Rule 10 and allowing it. 4. In my opinion the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived. The ratio in Arjun Singh's case does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the suit proceeded ex-parte and upon conclusion of hearing the suit was adjourned for pronouncing the judgment, it is at that stage an application was filed by the defendant to recall the order directing to proceed ex-parte, therefore, the Court held that an application under Order 9, Rule 7would not be maintainable rather the defendant would have to assail the decree under Order 9 Rule13 CPC. 5. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the application was moved under Order 1, Rule 10 for being impleaded which can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, therefore, an embargo that the suit was posted for decision would not apply to an application under Order 1, Rule 10 . 6. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 7. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India declines to interfere with the matter. 8. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. No cost. Petition dismissed.