ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Aggrieved of order dated 17.12.2014 passed in Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000, whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 C.P.C filed by the petitioners claiming purchase of a part of the suit schedule property from defendant nos. 9, 11, 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) has been declined, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000 was instituted by Santosh Kumar Ganguli for a decree for ½ share in the suit properties. The suit was contested by the defendants disputing the address of the defendants disclosed in the partition suit. It was pleaded that in M.S record of rights name of Durga Prasad Ganguli, Sarda Prasad Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli in respect of M.S Holding No. 22/A, H. No. 810 of M.S New Holding No. 1176 in Ward No. VI (old) ad-measuring about 261 Kari is recorded, however, the Municipal Records stood in the name of Durga Prasad Ganguli only and after his death rent receipts were issued in his name. Schedule 'B' properties, it was claimed, are owned and possessed by heirs of Durga Prasad Ganguli and after his death his son, daughter and wife came in possession over the said land. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs pleading that heirs of Santosh Kumar Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli have no right, title and possession over the suit properties, for Sarda Prasad Ganguli and Kashishwar Ganguli had no right, title and interest over the same. During pendency of the suit, by a registered sale-deed dated 12.09.2012 defendant nos. 9, 11, 12(a), 12(b)and 12(c) alienated a piece of property comprised under the suit schedule properties to the petitioners. In the above facts, the petitioners filed an application for their impleadment in Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000, which has been dismissed by the trial Judge vide an order dated 17.12.2014. 3. Contending that a purchaser pendente-lite has a valuable interest flowing from the registered sale-deed, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impleadment of the petitioners is necessary for protecting their rights under sale-deed dated 12.09.2012. Opposing the aforesaid contention, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 3. Contending that a purchaser pendente-lite has a valuable interest flowing from the registered sale-deed, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impleadment of the petitioners is necessary for protecting their rights under sale-deed dated 12.09.2012. Opposing the aforesaid contention, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submit that a purchaser pendente-lite cannot claim a better right than what his vendor can claim and while so, impleadment of a purchaser pendente-lite, who is a stranger to the partition suit, cannot be permitted. 4. Under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C the Court on its own motion can implead or delete the name of a party in a suit. The test is whether the suit can be decided effectively in absence of a party, and whether in absence of a party the suit can be completely and finally decided or not. [refer, "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue Bihar and Another" reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 ]. May be a purchaser pendente-lite cannot resist the claim of the plaintiff in the partition suit, at the stage of final decree he can always protect his interest flowing from the sale-deed to the extent of share of his vendor. In "Dhanlakshmi and Others v. P. Mohan and Others" reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 , the Supreme Court has dealt with this issue in case of transferees-in-interest of a co-sharer in these words: "5. Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case, the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P. Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the trial court. Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the trial court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings." 5. The petitioners who are claiming valuable rights in the suit property, in the above facts, are proper parties in the suit. The impugned order dated 17.12.2014 is found unsustainable and accordingly, it is set-aside. Consequently, application dated 27.01.2014 stands allowed. 6. The petitioners shall be impleaded as party defendants in Partition Suit No. 09 of 2000, however, except producing copy of the sale-deed and filing a formal affidavit they would not be permitted to file written statement. At this stage, Mr. Siddhartha, J. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 states that on 19.08.2017, Letter of Administration has been issued in favour of respondent no. 2 in so far as share of respondent no. 1 is concerned. Be that as it may, this issue, if required, can be dealt with by the trial Court. 7. Keeping in mind the mandate of Rule 1 and 2 to Order 17 C.P.C, the suit shall be disposed of expeditiously. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.