ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners wanted to intervene as plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 42 of 1997, which was filed by opposite party no. 4 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession and injunction etc. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 22.9.2003 passed in the aforesaid suit, by which the learned Munsif, Hilsa had rejected their petition under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding them as co-plaintiffs to the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit property is the joint property of the family and the petitioners being full brother and aunt of the original plaintiff were necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. They further claimed that the plaintiff never objected to their petition and they had also undertaken that if they are impleaded as co-plaintiffs to the suit, they would not file any petition for amendment of the plaint, nor would they lead any evidence in the suit, nor even they would recall any witness already examined. Hence he submits that the impugned order of the learned court below is arbitrary, illegal and perverse. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants-opposite parties vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner's stating that the learned court below while passing the impugned order has considered every aspect of the matter and has also submitted that the written statement was filed by them on 23.7.1998 in which plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was taken. Only to circumvent the inevitable the petitioners intervened through their petition filed at the plaintiff's instance five years later on 19.7.2003 when the evidence of both the parties had closed and the arguments in the suit were at an advanced stage. He further contends that it is merely a dilatory play of the plaintiff to continue the unnecessary and frivolous litigation to harass the defendants as the learned court below had specifically found that if the intervenors are impleaded, additional written statement would be required and the witnesses have to be recalled. Hence he avers that the impugned order of the learned court below is quite legal arid justified. 5. Hence he avers that the impugned order of the learned court below is quite legal arid justified. 5. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the original plaintiff and the intervenors both belong to the same family and the plaintiff, who is the dominus litus, never opposed the intervenors' prayer for impleadment at any stage. Furthermore, the intervenors themselves have undertaken that they would neither seek any amendment to the plaint nor intend to lead any evidence or recall any witness already examined in the suit. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the apprehension of the learned court below that addition of intervenors as co-plaintiffs would delay the disposal of the suit is baseless. Furthermore, addition of the intervenors, who claimed to be co-owners of the suit property would naturally lead to a full, final and proper adjudication of the issues involved regarding the merit of the claims of the parties. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hereby set aside the impugned order and direct the learned court below to implead the intervenors as co-plaintiffs and expedite the argument as well as disposal of the suit. 7. With the aforesaid direction this civil revision is allowed. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of rupees one thousand by the intervenors to the defendants in the court below within a month from today.