JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.4.2007, whereby the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Virat Nagar, Jaipur dismissed the application of the petitioners-applicants filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question, hence they are necessary party in the suit, but the learned trial court arbitrarily rejected their application and gainsaid to implead them as party in the suit. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioners have claimed themselves to be the owner of the land in question on the basis of entries in revenue record, but this argument has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the mutation was entered in the revenue record on the basis of forged Will allegedly scribbled by deceased Harlal. The suit had been pending since 1996 and till 2006, the petitioners-applicants never endeavoured to become a party in the suit. Had they been interested in the suit, they would have filed an application much before and prayed for their impleadment as necessary party in the suit, but they never did so. 4. So far as the plea of getting knowledge about the pendency of the suit only few days back, is concerned, this fact does not seem to be easily acceptable. The petitioners have also pleaded that they have been in possession of the land in question since 1973. This statement of the petitioners also does not seem to be true because had they been in possession of the land in question, the fact of filing suit by the respondent-plaintiff would have come into their knowledge much earlier, rather 10 years back, but that does not seem to be true. It appears that the petitioners applicants have filed the application at a belated stage, that too after 10 years of filing the suit by plaintiff with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. 5. It is relevant to record that there is a distinction between necessary party and proper party. A necessary party is one without whose presence, no effective decree or order can be passed. 5. It is relevant to record that there is a distinction between necessary party and proper party. A necessary party is one without whose presence, no effective decree or order can be passed. A proper party is one in whose presence a decree or order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for complete, final and effective adjudication of all issues involved in the suit. In other words, a necessary party is a party, who ought to have been joined as a party; and a proper party is a party, who should be joined as a party for convenience or expediency. 6. It is well settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it was not for the court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not the province of a court of law to interfere with that right. If the plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. 7. The trial court is found to have rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicants-petitioners. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and apt and they do not warrant any intervention. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.Writ petition dismissed. *******