JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - I.A. No.7182 of 2017 filed for substitution of the petitioner-Baidhnath Thakur through his widow-Savitry Devi and three sons, namely Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Bijay Thakur and Umesh Thakur is allowed. 2. Let necessary corrections be made in the memo of parties. 3. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.27 of 2006, is aggrieved of addition of Abdul Alim and Khalid Nayeem as interveners in the suit. 4. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that in a suit instituted for declaration of the plaintiff''s right, title and interest over the suit land in which the claim of the Forest Department has been contested by the plaintiff, the interveners are neither necessary nor proper parties. 5. Who is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another reported in , (1963) AIR SC 786". It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding is a proper party. Under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either suo-motu or upon an application of a party, struck out the name of any party who has been improperly joined and name of any person who ought to have been joined may be added in the suit. 6. Without recording facts of the case in detail, suffice would be to record that the plaintiff himself has pleaded that he was a raiyat under late Sardari Begum, who was mother of the applicant no.1 and grand-mother of the applicant no.2 [para-4 of the plaint]. Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that specific stand of the petitioner is that the suit land was purchased by him from Man Mohan Singh and Radha Mohan Singh and he is in possession of the suit land since more than 60 years. 7. Whether the petitioner has a valid title over the suit land or not, is a matter for trial. 7. Whether the petitioner has a valid title over the suit land or not, is a matter for trial. At this stage, when the interveners have prima-facie established their interest in the suit property being descendants of late Sardari Begum who had purchased the suit land through sale-deed dated 20.03.1943, they have established that their interest in the suit is substantial and not peripheral. Any decision in the suit obviously would affect their claim over the suit land by virtue of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 20.03.1943 in favour of Sardari Begum. In " Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs Farida Khatoon & Anr. reported in , (2005) 11 SCC 403 it has been held that a person, who has substantial but not peripheral interest involved in the suit, can be joined as a party in the suit. 8. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding no infirmity in the order of impleadment in Title Suit No.27 of 2006, the writ petition is dismissed.