JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.09.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 by which his application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC has been rejected. 2. Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 has been instituted by Mansukh Lal Kotecha and Ganga Ben Kotecha for a decree for declaration of their khas possession over the suit property and for a decree directing the defendants to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have pleaded that grandfather of the plaintiff no. 1 namely, Shyamji Ambaram Kotecha partitioned his properties amongst his four sons through a registered deed of partition dated 22.02.1949. The properties comprised under Khata No. 58 spread over several acres of land in different plot numbers at Village-Sewata, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh were acquired either in the joint name of Durlabhji Kotecha and Hiralal Kotecha or in the name of his two brothers along with the legal heirs of Amrit Lal Kotecha through various sale-deeds. In course of time several quarters were constructed out of the joint family fund over different parts of Plot Nos. 1000, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1110 and different tenants were inducted. Defendant no.1 was a tenant in Quarter No.4 which is butted and bounded by Quarter No.3 and Quarter No. 5. The plaintiffs have asserted that the defendant no. 1 created certain dispute in respect of which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated and subsequently a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C was drawn in respect the of lands comprised under Plot Nos. 1000, 1010 of Khata No. 62 and Plot Nos. 1007, 1008, 1009 of Khata No. 58 vide Case No. 26 of 2004. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have illegally trespassed Quarter No. 3 by dispossessing the plaintiffs and a written complaint in this respect was given to the police on the basis of which Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 398 of 2004 dated 01.12.2004 has been lodged. In the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In the aforesaid facts, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. When the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005, primarily on the ground that the land in question is his ancestral property and this property is a part of the suit schedule property in Partition Suit No. 85 of 2007. This application has been rejected by the trial Judge by the impugned order dated 12.09.2017. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute involved in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 presence of the petitioner in the suit is necessary. Further contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a decision in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 is likely to affect his interest; he is plaintiff no. 9 in Partition Suit No. 85 of 2007. 4. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 has been instituted for recovery of possession of Quarter No. 3 to the plaintiffs. No doubt, the plaintiffs have claimed their right, title and interest over the lands comprised under Khata No. 58 by virtue of various sale-deeds executed by the ancestors of the petitioner, a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which is instituted on an allegation of forceful dispossession remains confined to the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession or not. In a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act title of the parties cannot be decided, whereas a suit for partition is a primarily founded on a claim that the properties in question are the joint family properties. Any declaration in Tittle Suit No. 13 of 2005, in the above facts, would, thus, not affect the right of the petitioner who is plaintiff no. 9 in the Partition Suit No. 85 of 2007, in so far as his claim for partition in the said suit is concerned. 5. In “Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Any declaration in Tittle Suit No. 13 of 2005, in the above facts, would, thus, not affect the right of the petitioner who is plaintiff no. 9 in the Partition Suit No. 85 of 2007, in so far as his claim for partition in the said suit is concerned. 5. In “Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another” reported in AIR 1963 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. Power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience. 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. In Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 presence of the petitioner is not necessary. Whether the plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed from Quarter No. 3 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for recovery of possession of Quarter No. 3, are the issues which can be effectively and completely adjudicated in absence of the petitioner; in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 there is no allegation against the petitioner. In fact, the sale-deeds executed by the ancestors of the petitioner are not under challenge and if at all there is any substance in the stand taken by the petitioner, the petitioner should have filed an application for impleadment of the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 and not an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for his impleadment in this suit. 7. Taking note of the dispute involved in Title Suit No. 13 of 2005 and the limitations under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application for his impleadment in the suit. 8. In the above facts, finding no infirmity with the impugned order date 12.09.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.