ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of valid service of notice. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated,25.09.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Garhwa in Title Suit No. 42/1998, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 17.09.2012 an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., was also filed but the learned court below vide order dated 25.09.2013 has not at all considered the said application. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are the purchasers of the suit land from the defendant nos. 7 and 8 and since the petitioners apprehends that they have lost interest in the case and the petitioners being a necessary party it was incumbent upon the learned court below to have allowed the application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., apart from considering the application preferred by the petitioners under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. It has also been submitted that although the impugned order is dated 25.09.2013 and was passed on the ground that the case was fixed for argument but till date the suit has not been disposed of. 4. The petitioners claimed that they had purchased lands vide four sale deeds part of Plot No. 158 from the defendants Baldeo Mahto and Ram Ghan Mahto. It was prayed in the application preferred under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., that since the petitioners are the purchasers of the suit land therefore it was necessary that the petitioners be made parties. Subsequently on 17.09.2012 another application was preferred by the petitioners under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., to implead the petitioners as defendants on the same ground which has been enumerated above. The impugned order dated 25.09.2013 although has made a fleeting reference to the petition preferred on 17.09.2012 but save and except considering the fact that a belated claim has been made by the petitioners for substitution as well as for impleadment as defendants the prayer has been rejected. The impugned order dated 25.09.2013 although has made a fleeting reference to the petition preferred on 17.09.2012 but save and except considering the fact that a belated claim has been made by the petitioners for substitution as well as for impleadment as defendants the prayer has been rejected. Moreover it appears that the application preferred under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., filed on 17.09.2012 had not at all been considered. 5. From the application preferred by the petitioners it appears that they are necessary parties and therefore the application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., as well as under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., should have been appropriately considered. In such perspective the learned court below should not have merely rejected the application under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., only on the ground that the petitioners were intending to linger the disposal of the trial. 6. In such circumstances, therefore, while setting aside the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ist, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 42/1998, the matter is remanded back to the concerned court to pass a fresh order on the application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., as well as the application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., expeditiously, since it has been stated that the suit is pending since the year 1998. 7. This writ application stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.