without consideration. It was further the case set up that he was still in actual physical possession of the suit land as bhondedar . Defendantrespondent Nos.1 to 3 herein appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement and a counter-claim to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land and that plaintiff-respondent No.4 herein and his mother Smt. Bharto through their General Power Attorney holder - Chhailu Ram - sold all their rights, title and interest in the suit land to defendantrespondent Nos.1 to 3 for a valuable sale consideration. The suit as well as the counter-claim were dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015. Ram Kanwar, plaintiff-respondent No.4 herein, chose not to prefer an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015 passed by the Trial Court. The counter-claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2015 dismissing their counter-claim. In the said appeal, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte . During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioners herein under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading them as respondents on the ground that they had purchased the property in dispute on 02.07.2014 for a valuable sale consideration and they were bonafide purchasers. The said application was contested by the respondents herein. Vide the impugned order the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.
