JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title (P) Suit No. 137 of 2003, whereby the application filed by the respondent nos. 17 to 21 under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for addition of parties has been allowed. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the petitioner namely, Jaleshwar Prasad Singh and Kedar Nath Singh (defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1) had purchased a land by way of registered sale-deed dated 30.10.1964. The father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner filed a suit for partition of land being Title (Partition) Suit No. 137 of 2003, wherein the respondent no. 1 appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that though the suit property was purchased jointly, the petitioner has extinguished his right. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the suit was fixed for hearing. In the meantime, the respondent nos. 17 to 21 filed a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for making them parties in the suit claiming therein that they are the real owners of the suit property. The learned Sub-Judge vide order dated 28.09.2010 allowed the intervention petition on the ground that the intervenors are claiming their right, title and interest on the basis of decree passed in Title Suit No. 8 of 1941, where it was found that the deed of gift in the name of Nidhu Bala Dasi and Aparna Dasya were fraudulent and benami transaction. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I Dhanbad. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by him is simply a partition suit and as such, claim of the intervenors regarding the right, title and interest in the said property is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner, being the plaintiff in the suit, had not explained as to how the property devolved upon him, that can be treated as a lacunae in the plaint due to which the suit itself may be dismissed by the court, but the same may not be treated as a ground for impleading the intervenors as defendants in the suit. It was merely a partition suit in which the court has to determine the share of the parties to the suit and no third person has any right to intervene in a suit of such nature. Thus, the learned Sub-Judge-I , Dhanbad has committed serious error in allowing the intervention petition filed by the intervenors and by directing them to be impleaded as defendants third set in the suit. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ajmera Housing Corporation Vs. Amrit M. Patel (dead) through LRs & Ors.” reported in AIR 1998 SC 2542 . 5. The learned counsel for the intervenors in the suit i.e., respondent nos. 17 to 21 submits that an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed as soon as they came to know that the petitioner and respondent no. 1, in collusion with each other, have filed a partition suit for partition of the suit property on the ground that the same was acquired by father of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 by virtue of sale-deed nos. 14689, 14690 and 14691 dated 30.10.1964 from the rightful owner, but in fact, the intervenors are the real owners of the suit property as it was acquired by one Murlidhar Paul (predecessor-in-interest of the intervenors) and Haribol Paul in execution of decree passed in Mortgage (Title) Suit Nos. 61 of 1928, 23 of 1930 and 8 of 1941 and they got delivery of possession in terms of the certificate issued in Execution Case Nos. 492 of 1935, 144 of 1938, 138 of 1940 and 140 of 1940 and in that manner, Murlidhar Paul and Haribol Paul became exclusive owner of 6 Annas interest of Mouza-Ranguni, which was recorded in the name of Chandra Mohan Dutta, Shambhu Nath Dutta and Shashibala Dasi and continued to possess the same. It is further submitted that in Title Suit No. 8 of 1941, it was decided as issue no. III that deed of gift in favour of Nidhu Bala Dasi and Aparna Dasya was benami and collusive document, therefore, they did not acquire any interest over the said property. Accordingly, the vendors of registered sale-deed on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the suit land had no transferable interest. III that deed of gift in favour of Nidhu Bala Dasi and Aparna Dasya was benami and collusive document, therefore, they did not acquire any interest over the said property. Accordingly, the vendors of registered sale-deed on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the suit land had no transferable interest. Consequently, subsequent purchasers of the land also did not acquire any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the intervenors are the necessary party in the suit as their non-impleadment would give rise to multiplicity of the proceeding. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner filed a partition suit claiming half share over the suit property against the respondent no. 1 which were jointly acquired by their predecessor-in-interest. The intervenors (respondent nos. 17 to 21) filed intervention petition stating therein that in fact, they are the rightful owners of the property in question for which the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 are seeking partition against each other. The learned Sub-Judge, while considering the application filed by the intervenors under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, came to a conclusion that the intervenors had the interest over the suit property and though it is a partition suit between two co-owners of the property, but they have not explained as to in what manner their vendors namely, Nidhu Bala Dasi and Aparna Dasya acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. 7. Considering the aforesaid factual background of the case, I find that the intervenors (respondent nos. 17 to 21) are the proper party in the present suit as they would enable the court to properly and effectively adjudicate upon all the matters and issues though they may not be the persons in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd.” reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384 has discussed the difference between “necessary party” and “proper party”. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd.” reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384 has discussed the difference between “necessary party” and “proper party”. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. A “proper party” is a person whose presence would enable the Court to properly and effectively adjudicate upon all the matters and issues though the decree may not be passed against or in his favour. 9. In the present case, though the intervenors are not the necessary party in the suit, yet considering the fact that they have challenged the very title of the suit property for which a partition suit was filed by the petitioner, in my considered opinion, they are the proper party as their impleadment in the suit would enable the court to adjudicate the suit in effective and proper manner. The judgment of “Ajmera Housing Corporation” (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case, the suit was filed by the builder for specific performance of agreement to develop land against the land owners. However, the developer with whom builder had entered into a separate agreement sought impleadment as plaintiff which was rejected, as he was not found necessary party to the said suit. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the learned Sub-Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by the intervenors (respondent nos. 17 to 21) under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and they were ordered to be impleaded as defendants third set in the suit. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.09.2010 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title (P) Suit No. 137 of 2003. 12. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.