JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In furtherance of the order dated 05.01.2024, the counsel for the petitioner has filed the supplementary-affidavit which is taken on record. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.4, Sitapur. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, briefly the facts giving rise to the same is being noticed hereinafter. 5. One Satish Kumar instituted a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed which was registered as Regular Suit No.263 of 2008. In the said suit, the defendants were Shanti Devi and Madhu Devi. The record further indicates that Madhu Devi is the successor in interest of Shanti Devi who had executed a sale deed in her favour. The record further indicates that the suit bearing No.263 of 2008 came to be dismissed by the trial court in exercise of power under section 151 CPC on 28.07.2012. 6. Being aggrieved against the order dated 28.07.2012, an appeal was preferred by Satish Kumar alongwith one Ram Pyari. The said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.97 of 2012. However, objections were raised by the present petitioner indicating that since the suit was dismissed under section 151 CPC, consequently, the appeal would not lie. 7. Be that as it may, the said appeal got converted in a revision which is engaging the attention of Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Sitapur. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present petitioner once again raised objection that the revision was not competent for the reason that Ram Pyari who is the revisionist no.2 could not have joined the proceedings in revision alongwith Satish Kumar in absence of any leave granted by the Court. 9. It is urged that even assuming if Ram Pyari had purchased the disputed property from Satish even then the subsequent purchaser must seek the leave of the Court as provided under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC. 10. Another ground of challenge was that Satish Kumar himself did not have any right in the property and since the suit itself had been dismissed, therefore, unless the rights of Satish Kumar are first adjudicated and upheld till then even the sale deed executed by him in favour of Ram Pyari was erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. Another ground of challenge was that Satish Kumar himself did not have any right in the property and since the suit itself had been dismissed, therefore, unless the rights of Satish Kumar are first adjudicated and upheld till then even the sale deed executed by him in favour of Ram Pyari was erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the revision was not competent to proceed. 11. By means of the impugned order dated 16.12.2023, the Court did not find favour with the objections raised by the petitioner and consequently rejected the same fixing 06.01.2024 for disposal of the other pending applications before the revisional court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the parties were defective and not appropriately impleaded the proceedings are rendered nugatory and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside after allowing the instant petition. 12. The Court has considered the submissions and also perused the material on record. 13. Apparently from the perusal of the petition, the petitioner has filed the copy of the plaint as Annexure no.17, the same indicates that the suit was filed by Satish Kumar whereas Shanti Devi and Madhu Devi were the defendants. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that Satish Kumar and Ram Pyari both have jointly filed the appeal which later on was converted in a revision. 14. However, while assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has not impleaded Satish Kumar as a party to the instant proceedings. The instant petition has been filed by Madhu alone as petitioner and she has also not impleaded Shanti Devi her predecessor-in-interest who was the defendant no.1 in the suit. 15. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why the aforesaid parties have not been impleaded, to which it was answered that since Satish Kumar is a non-existent person, therefore, he has not been impleaded. However, as far as Shanti Devi is concerned, she has expired and therefore there was no need to implead her. It has not been indicated in the petition that after the death of Shanti Devi, the legal heirs are to be brought on record or not. However, as far as Shanti Devi is concerned, she has expired and therefore there was no need to implead her. It has not been indicated in the petition that after the death of Shanti Devi, the legal heirs are to be brought on record or not. The only objections of the counsel for the petitioner that Ram Pyari could not have joined the proceedings directly without an application to be moved before the court concerned. 16. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is true that in order for a party to be impleaded either an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC is to be moved or in case if it is a case for substitution then appropriate application could be moved in terms of Order 22, Rule 3 or 4 CPC as the case may be. Apart from that there is another provision under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC which is applicable to persons upon whom the rights devolved by assignment during pendency of the proceedings and the language of the said provision is such that it reflects that the leave of the Court is to be sought. 17. It is also correct to state that normally a party cannot come forward before a court without seeking the leave. There may be instances where a party not even a party to the proceedings but is an aggrieved person may have a right to approach a court of law but nevertheless the locus has to be explained and the leave has to be sought. 18. In the instant case, there is no application nor there is any efforts made by Ram Pyari to seek the leave of the court for her impleadment on the basis of a sale deed said to be executed by Satish Kumar. 19. The point which is being canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct but at the same time her petition before this Court also falls foul of the same issue for which the impugned order is being assailed. Satish Kumar admittedly was the plaintiff and upon the dismissal he is also one of the appellants but he has not been made a party to the instant petition. 20. Satish Kumar admittedly was the plaintiff and upon the dismissal he is also one of the appellants but he has not been made a party to the instant petition. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if at all the impugned order is set aside yet it would be open for the parties to seek their impleadment in terms of Order 22, Rule 10 CPC or Order 1, Rule 10 CPC as the case may be. It is also to be noticed that this Court is exercising jurisdiction in terms of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India which is a discretionary jurisdiction and a petitioner who approaches the Court must not only amplify the violation of the provision but also indicate the equity. 21. Having considered the aforesaid matter and looking it from the aforesaid angle, this Court finds that it is technical objection which has been raised and it is now well settled to be disputed that laws of procedure are only handsmaid of justice and do not come in the way of administrating substantive justice between the parties. Even though the reasoning of the Court below may not be very sound but at the same time substantial justice has been done where the parties who are contesting the proceedings have been made party and for the said reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.