JUDGMENT : Registry has reported that the respondents have been validly served. 2. The petitioners have also filed an affidavit on service of Dasti notices upon the respondents. 3. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S. No.19 of 2016, are aggrieved of order dated 03.08.2017 by which the application filed by three villagers for their impleadment in the suit has been allowed. 4. Briefly stated, O.S. No.19 of 2016 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and for a decree for confirmation of their possession over the suit land and in the alternative, if they are found dispossessed delivery of Khas possession to them after evicting the defendants. The plaintiffs have laid a claim over about 41 decimals land within Khata No.98 under Plot No.1091 pleading that the aforesaid land was recorded in the name of their predecessor-in-interest. However, without a deed of transfer of the aforesaid land, for construction of a school building by the State Government, they have been dispossessed. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the suit land was never donated or gifted by them or their ancestors. The plaintiffs have also referred to Complaint Case No.21 of 2013 and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C which were initiated in respect of the suit land. 5. In the pending suit before a written-statement was filed on behalf of the defendants, an application under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC (wrongly typed as Order X Rule 2) was filed by Dasay Munda, Mangru Pradhan and Jeetu Gope for their impleadment in the suit. Claiming that the land on which Government Middle School was constructed about 50 years back, which now has been upgraded as a High School, was donated by the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 4 but in lieu of the suit land the villagers had given their land to him, the application for impleadment was filed. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs, pleading that the applicants were strangers and on a vague plea cannot be impleaded in the suit. 6. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicants who claim that they have some knowledge about construction of the Middle School on the suit land at best can be a witness for the defendants, but not a party to the suit. 7. 6. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicants who claim that they have some knowledge about construction of the Middle School on the suit land at best can be a witness for the defendants, but not a party to the suit. 7. In “Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another” reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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. The intervenors are not those who can contest or support the stand of the plaintiffs. Their presence is not necessary for adjudicating the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 8. In a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, a person who does not claim that he or his ancestor is the one who has compensated the father of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 by giving land in lieu of the land allegedly donated by the father of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 cannot claim that he is a necessary or proper party in the suit. In “Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr.”- (2005) 11 SCC 403 , it has been held that only a person who has a substantial interest involved in the suit and not just a peripheral interest can be impleaded in the suit. The application dated 06.06.2017 filed by the applicants do not disclose that they have substantial interest involved in the suit. In fact, the stand taken by them in their application for impleadment does not disclose that they do have even peripheral interest in the suit. The trial Judge has apparently committed a serious error in law and impleaded these intervenors parties to the suit. 9. In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 it is set-aside. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.