JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (original-applicant) challenging the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track)No.2, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'lower court), dismissing the application of the applicant for impleading him as party defendant in the suit. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent No.2 (original-plaintiff) has filed a civil suit being No. 209/2006 against the present respondent Nos.3 to 6 (original-defendants) in the lower court seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 31.12.2005 in respect of the suit land. The present petitioner (original-applicant) submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure praying that to implead him as the party defendant in the said suit, on the ground that the agricultural land in question being an ancestral property, he had an undivided share in the said property and that if any decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff, his rights would be affected. The said application came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.7.2007.Being aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. SC Gupta for the petitioner that though the petitioner is the son of the present respondent No.3 who is one of the defendants in the suit, he is not having good relations with the respondent No.3 and that another suit for partition of the properties including the suit land, has already been filed by the petitioner against his father. Mr. Gupta placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in case of Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. and ors. (2007) 10 SCC 82 and in case of Mumbai International Airport (P.) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. and others, (2010) 7 SCC, 417 , has submitted that the petitioner is a proper party in the suit and his application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure could not have been dismissed by the lower court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Kumawat for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the interest of the petitioner being sufficiently represented by his father who is the respondent No.3 and one of the defendants in the suit, the petitioner could not be said to be either a proper or a necessary party. According to Mr. Kumawat, the order passed by the lower court being discretionary in nature, this court may not interfere with the same. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it is not in dispute that the suit land in respect of which specific performance has been sought by the present respondent No.2(original-plaintiff) is an ancestral property, in which the petitioner as the son of respondent No.3 Ami Lal, has an undivided share. It also appears that a separate suit for partition has already been filed by the present petitioner. Under the circumstances, there is a substance in the submissions of Mr. SC Gupta that the petitioner having some semblance of title and interest in the property in question, his presence would be necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit finally and completely. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sumtibai and ors v. Paras Finance Co. (supra) that: 14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturis case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. 6. A beneficial reference of the ratio of decision rendered in the case Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra), is required to be made, in which it has been held as under: "15. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. 6. A beneficial reference of the ratio of decision rendered in the case Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra), is required to be made, in which it has been held as under: "15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a " Necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff." 7. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is true that the suit has been filed by the respondent No.2 against respondent No.3 to 6 seeking specific performance of the agreement in question and that no relief has been claimed against present petitioner, nonetheless since the petitioner is having an undivided share in the suit land, he has a semblance of title or interest in the suit land and his presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in suit. 8. In that view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner would be a proper party in the suit filed by the respondent No.2 and hence he is required to be impleaded as the party defendant in the array of defendants. The impugned order passed by the lower court therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is directed to be impleaded as the party defendant in the array of defendants in the suit filed by the respondent No.2 against respondent Nos.3 to 6 pending before the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court No.2, Alwar. The petition stands allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******