Order Heard the learned counsel or the parties. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 18.1.2005 (Annexure-1), passed by the Munsif, First, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 34 of 2001, whereby the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of 'he C.P.C. for impleading one Falu Mahto as a party-defendant in the suit, was rejected. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit for declaration and title and for permanent injunction, was filed by the present plaintiff against the defendants, namely, the present Respondents. While the plaintiff had claimed that the disputed lands were purchased by the plaintiff from the co-sharers' of one Falu Mahto in the year 1958, the defendants had raised a plea that they had purchased the disputed lands from Falu Mahto on 17th March, 1970. The controversy which arose from the pleadings of the defendants was that the earlier transaction of sale indulged by the plaintiff with the co-sharers of Falu Mahto, was illegal as because on the date of sale, Falu Mahto was a minor and he could not possibly have given a legal consent for the sale of his share of the properties and it was only when Falu Mahto had attained the age of majority that the defendants had purchased the disputed suit property from him. 4. The plaintiff on the other hand claimed that on t~ date when they had obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property, Falu Mahto had already attained the age of majority. 5. From the aforesaid facts, the obvious inference is that the controversy could be resolved by obtaining the first hand statement of Falu Mahto. The plaintiff has, therefore, expressed that Falu Mahto being a necessary party to the suit property, should be impleaded as a party defendant and his statement be obtained. It appears that the defendants/respondents had contested the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the attempt as made by the plaintiff was only to prolong the litigation. 6. The learned court below vide the impugned order has observed that Falu Mahto was not a necessary party, since there is no dispute raised by the defendants regarding the sale deeds executed by Falu Mahto in favour of the defendants and likewise, the sale deed of 1958, upon which the plaintiff relies, has not been disputed. 6. The learned court below vide the impugned order has observed that Falu Mahto was not a necessary party, since there is no dispute raised by the defendants regarding the sale deeds executed by Falu Mahto in favour of the defendants and likewise, the sale deed of 1958, upon which the plaintiff relies, has not been disputed. It appears from the reasons assigned by the learned court below that it has not taken into consideration the main issues involved in the controversy which revolve around the statements of Falu Mahto for the purposes of assessing, on the issue as to whether the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1958 was a valid and legal document for creating a valid and legal title in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 7. The objection of the defendants/respondents that allowing the petition would only lead to further delay in the proceedings cannot, in itself, be a ground for refusing the prayer, considering the fact that there is sufficient material to hold that Falu Mahto is a necessary party in the light of the controversies raised in the suit. The detriment caused to the defendants on account of the delay could very well have been compensated by imposition of cost. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances and finding merit, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order of the court below dated 18.1.2005, is hereby set aside. The learned court below shall reconsider the prayer of the plaintiff and record a fresh decision on the same. However, the decision to allow the plaintiff's prayer for impleading Falu Mahto may be made subject to payment of a reasonable cost by the petitioner/plaintiff, as the trial court may impose.