JUDGMENT : SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Maharajganj in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2009, (wrongly described as Case No. 29 of 2009 in the certified copy of the impugned order). Being a short and interlocutory matter, the instant appeal is being decided at the fresh stage itself, with consent of parties. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are : Original Suit No. 427 of 1991 was instituted by one Gyani Devi v. Tilakdhari and others seeking relief of declaration against the will-deed dated 12.09.1985 purportedly executed by Ram Adhare Das the husband of plaintiff Gyani Devi in favour of Dilip Kumar defendant no. 2; permanent injunction in respect of suit properties and; cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 Tilakdhari and others claiming under the will deed executed by Ram Adhare Das. 3. It is on record that the aforesaid suit was decreed on relief 1 and 2 as above described, whereas the relief of permanent injunction was refused. The aforesaid judgment and decree gave rise to two appeals being appeal no. 29 of 2009 filed by the heirs of Tilakdhari who expired during pendency of the original suit no. 427 of 1991 and the other appeal no. 30 of 2009 filed by the defendant no. 2 Dilip Kumar. Both appeals are still pending and stay order is obtaining therein. 4. During pendency of the above appeals, Gyani Devi expired on 27.10.2014. Arising from that event an application is claimed to have been filed by the present appellants Ram Paras and others being legal representatives of Tilakdhari, to add the word deceased against the name of Gyani Devi and to add paragraph 12-A to that Dilip Kumar is the only legal representative of Gyani Devi and their is no other legal representative. 5. This application came to be opposed by one Runa Devi who claimed to be the daughter of the deceased Gyani Devi and, therefore, contested the application filed by the present appellants. The application was allowed by order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Appellate Court and it has been stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the said stay order was not challenged by Runa Devi. 6. The application was allowed by order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Appellate Court and it has been stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the said stay order was not challenged by Runa Devi. 6. However, soon after the aforesaid application was allowed on 26.09.2016, Runa Devi filed an application under Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded in the pending appeal on the basis of registered will deed dated 21.01.2008 executed by Gyani Devi in her favour. Copy of this application is annexed with the stay application to this appeal. 7. The appellants claim that they objected the aforesaid application by filing their objection wherein they specifically stated Dilip Kumar is the only legal heir and representative of the deceased Gyani Devi and the will deed dated 21.01.2008 produced by Runa Devi is a forged one. 8. It appears that neither the application filed by Runa Devi nor the objections filed by the present appellants thereto were supported by affidavit. 9. The Court below has by order dated 28.02.2017 allowed the application under Order 22, Rule 10 and directed for impleadment of Runa Devi as respondent no. 4 in the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit, in view of the clear language of Order 22, Rule 10 read with Rule 4 and 5, CPC, it was mandatory for the appellate court below to get conducted an enquiry by the trial court and to have impleaded Runa Devi only after such enquiry and after considering the same before proceeding to implead Runa Devi. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents would on the other hand submit, the provisions of Rule 4 and 5 of Order 22 CPC would not apply to the situation inasmuch as the application had been filed under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC in respect of creation of interest applies in case of creation or devolution of interest during pendency of the suit whereas Rule 5 is confined in its application where the person is a legal heir or representative of the deceased. 12. Also, learned counsel for the appellants would submit, the application under Order 22, Rule 10 had been allowed merely on the asking inasmuch as Runa Devi has still not brought on record the original will deed dated 21.1.2008 under which she claims the property devolved on her. 12. Also, learned counsel for the appellants would submit, the application under Order 22, Rule 10 had been allowed merely on the asking inasmuch as Runa Devi has still not brought on record the original will deed dated 21.1.2008 under which she claims the property devolved on her. He would therefore, submit that the pre-condition for application under Order 22, Rule 10 was not satisfied inasmuch as she has not shown any interest in the suit property before the lower Appellate Court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit, Smt. Runa Devi had filed a certified photocopy of the will document and it was sufficient compliance of Order 22, Rule 10. 14. Having considered the arguments so raised, I find, in respect of the first argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants, there is no finding of the lower Appellate Court. Neither the issue was raised nor it was contested before the lower Appellate Court whether the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 and 5 would apply to proceedings under Order 22, Rule 10. I may have been pursued to examine that issue further but I decline to consider the same in view of the discussion and order that I propose to pass, as below. 15. In view of the second argument so raised, by learned counsel for the appellant, clearly the original will deed has not been brought on record by the respondent under which Runa Devi claims devolution of interest in the suit property. Unless the original document was before the lower Appellate Court, it could not have proceeded to allow a party to be added that claiming under the plaintiff in the suit. 16. In so far as the lower Appellate Court has reasoned the objections are not supported by affidavit by present appellants, it appears that the application too was not supported by any affidavit and in any case for Smt. Runa Devi to be impleaded as a party she ought to have brought on record the original sale deed. 17. 16. In so far as the lower Appellate Court has reasoned the objections are not supported by affidavit by present appellants, it appears that the application too was not supported by any affidavit and in any case for Smt. Runa Devi to be impleaded as a party she ought to have brought on record the original sale deed. 17. It would be difficult to accept the contention raised by the respondents herein that a party would have a right to be impleaded and the appellants would have no right to object to the same inasmuch the issue whether a person has a right or locus to contest a suit or appeal would go to the root of the matter and it cannot be allowed or granted casually. 18. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 is set aside. It is left open to the respondent Runa Devi to bring a fresh application under Order 22, Rule 10 or such other application as she may be advised, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. If such application is filed within the aforesaid period, the same may be dealt with and decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months there from, in accordance with law, including right to the present appellants to object to the same on such grounds as they may raise. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have stated, in the event of such application being preferred by Smt. Runa Devi, the parties shall not seek any undue or long adjournments and shall cooperate so as to ensure expeditious disposal of the same. 19. In view of the above, with the directions and observations made above, the instant appeal from order is allowed. No order as to costs.