This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge Tezpur in TA No. 11 of 1977 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Mangaldoi in TS No 31 of 1972. 2. The plaintiff Paul Bargaon instituted TS No 21 of 1972 against five (5) main defendants and two ( 2) proforma defendants claiming for declaration of title to suit land and khas poisession of the sams of the footing that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the proforma defendant -6 Kandura Daimari. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit. On appeal the Assistant District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal to this Court by the plaintiff. 3. Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that in the lower appellate Court the pro forma defendant-6 was not made a party and, therefore, the findings of the trial Court that the proforma defendant-6 had his right, title and interest in the suit land could not be reversed by the lower appellate Court without making the proforma defendant - 6 as a party respondent in that appeal as was constituted. 4. The addition of a defendant whom the apellant has not made party respondent to the appeal is provided under Order 41, Rule 20, CPC. Order 41, Rule 20, CPC runs as follows: "Power to adjourn hearing and direct persons appearing interested to be made respondents.-(1) Where it appears to the Court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decrree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made a party to the appeal, is interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future day to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent. (2) * * * (emphasis added) 5. Order 41, Rule 20 CPC empowers the Court to make a party respondent if the following pre-requisites are satisfied. First, the proposed party respondent was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made as a party to the appeal. Secondly, it appears to the Court that the proposed party respondent is interested in the result of the appeal. First, the proposed party respondent was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made as a party to the appeal. Secondly, it appears to the Court that the proposed party respondent is interested in the result of the appeal. The expression "interested in the result of the appeal" indicates that the interest of the defendant, who was not made a party to the appeal by the appellant, is likely to be prejudiced by the determination of the appeal, as constituted without making that defendant as party respondent. 6. Keeping the above principle in view, let me now examine the case on hand. As earlier stated, the case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the suit land from proforma defendant - 6. The "proforma" means as a matter of form or for the sake of form. In the context of the case, a party against whom no relief has been claimed. Therefore, the plaintiff respondent was the real contestant. In such a situation, the proforma defendant - 6 was sufficiently represented by the plaintiff-respondent and the interest of the proforma defendant - 6 was not likely to bs prejudiced by the determination of the appeal as was constituted before the lower appellate Court. 7. As already stated, the plaintiff ckimed the suit land on the basis of the purchase of pro forma defendant - 6. The lower appellate Court held that pro forma defendant - 6 had no title and interest in the suit land as alleged gift made by the mother-in-law of pro forma defendant - 6 to him could not be proved. These are findings of facts based on record. There is no material to interfere with. For these reasons stated the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, No costs.