Judgment By way of this present Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1612-2004 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar (respondent no. 1) in suit no. 200 of 2002 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Mahamandeleshwar. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent no. 3 Rajesh Kumar Gautam filed a declaratory suit against the defendants/petitioners on the ground that the property in question belongs to Swami Shantanand and Swami Shantanand had executed a will in favour of plaintiff on 27-09-1999. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. The petitioners filed their written statements stating therein that earlier Swami Swatantratanand was the owner/ Mahant of the property in dispute who had executed a will in favour of Swami Shantanand thereby appointing Swami Shantanand Mahant/manager of the property in question. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit respondent no. 2 Brij Mohan Sharma moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for being added as a party in the suit on the ground that the found the will and few registered documents and came to know that he was bequeathed 2/3 part of property situated in Haridwar at Anand Ashram opp. Rishikul. It has been stated by him that he was not told about the property in dispute even by his parents and he did not know about the property till the discovery of the documents. 4. The petitioners filed their objection against the aforesaid application stating therein that the applicant Brij Mohan Sharma is not a necessary and proper party and this application was filed only to prolong litigation as Brij Mohan Sharma filed a regular suit! before the court of competent .jurisdiction. 5. The court below allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. filed by the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 16-12-2004. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order this writ petition has been preferred before this court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the court below has committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record as the court while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. must see the bonafides of the applicant, the plausibility of his claim and genuineness in the case and litigation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the court below has committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record as the court while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. must see the bonafides of the applicant, the plausibility of his claim and genuineness in the case and litigation. It has been further submitted that a party can only be added where it is extremely necessary for effectual and complete adjudication. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out certain paragraphs from the copy of the plaint as well as from written statement filed before the court below and on the basis of the same it has been submitted that the respondent no. 2 Brij Mohan Sharma who filed application before the court below has in fact no genuine claim in the property in question. He is neither a necessary nor proper party. Hence, no legal right to interfere in the proceedings of the suit. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has invited my attention towards the certain documents filed by him alongwith the counter affidavit. He has submitted that he is a necessary and proper party in view of the documents filed by him in the counter affidavit. It has also been submitted by him that the documents clearly reveal that the respondent no. 2 was bequeathed 2/3 part of the property, i.e., Anand Ashram opposite Rishi Kul. 10. I have perused the documents filed by the parties carefully. 11. Respondent no. 2 Brij Mohan Sharma has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. on the basis of the will which is alleged to have been executed by one Yagya Datt Sharma in his favour. The will has been filed by the respondent no. 2 Brij Mohan Sharma before the court below and it is paper no. 76 Ka. Perusal of this wili shows that one 2/3 of the property was bequeathed in favour of the respondent no. 2. 12. As far as the legality of the will is concerned, the same is not going to be decided on merit at the stage of impleadment of a party. Respondent no. 76 Ka. Perusal of this wili shows that one 2/3 of the property was bequeathed in favour of the respondent no. 2. 12. As far as the legality of the will is concerned, the same is not going to be decided on merit at the stage of impleadment of a party. Respondent no. 2 Brij Mohan Sharma on the basis of the documents filed by him appears to be a proper party in the suit for effectual and complete adjudication in view of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. A person may be added as a party to the suit if it is shown that he has a direct interest in the said property and hence his presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 13. From the perusal of the impugned order in the instant case, I have come to the conclusion that the court below has not exceeded its power in directing the addition of the respondent no. 2 as a party in the application. Nor it can be said that the exercise of the discretion was not sound. I do not consider that it is a fit case where I should interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the court below. 14. In the premises aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The ex-parte stay order dated 16-02-2005 stands discharged.