JUDGMENT : Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs filed a suit against respondent no.1/defendant seeking a decree of declaration to declare the respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs as owner in possession of the suit property; that, the suit was decreed ex parte on 07.08.2007; that, respondent no.1/defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application for condonation of delay to set aside the ex parte decree; that, the ex parte decree passed in favour of respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiff was set aside vide order dated 20.10.2010 and the suit was restored; that, however, when the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiffs, the respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners and two others. 2. He would submit that against the order of restoration of suit and the setting aside of ex parte decree by the trial court, respondent no.2/plaintiff filed a revision, however, the same was dismissed on 13.08.2015. 3. He would further submit that after restoration of suit, petitioners who had purchased the part of the property from respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs by three separate registered sale deeds dated 16.03.2008, 01.08.2014 and 01.09.2014, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC thereby praying to implead them as co-plaintiffs in the suit as they were successors-in-interest to respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiff. 4. He would further submit that this application for impleadment was allowed, however, prayer for consequential amendment in the plaint was disallowed by the same order i.e. dated 23.09.2016; that, being aggrieved, petitioners filed a revision, which was also dismissed. He would submit that the revisional court not only dismissed the revision but also observed that the petitioners have been impleaded and made co-plaintiffs in the suit against the law and also set aside the order of impleadment. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in re “A. Nawab John And Others Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 ” and would refer paragraph 22, which is extracted hereunder:- “22. The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.” 6. V.N. Subramaniyam, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 ” and would refer paragraph 22, which is extracted hereunder:- “22. The preponderance of opinion of this Court is that a pendente lite purchaser’s application for impleadment should normally be allowed or “considered liberally”.” 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1/defendant would submit that he is the true owner and in possession of the suit property. He, however, would fairly admit that in order to decide the controversy between the parties, the suit should be decided by earliest and, therefore, a consent judgment/order may be passed herein thereby allowing the petitioners/successors-in-interest to respondent no.2, 5, 6 and 7/plaintiffs as co-plaintiffs in the suit but without granting any permission for consequential amendment in the plaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that he has no objection to said proposal. 8. In view of the above, with the consent of both the parties, impugned order dated 03.01.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Civil Revision No.01 of 2017 “Sardar Gurucharan Singh vs. Kamala Devi and others”, is set aside and the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in O.S. No.129 of 2006 is restored. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 15.03.2024 at 10:30 AM and the trial court is requested to try and adjudicate the lis expeditiously without undue delay. 10. Subject to the above, writ petition stands disposed of finally.