JUDGMENT : The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 02.02.2017 passed in Partition Suit No.174 of 2015 by which the applications both under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC have been allowed. 2. Partition Suit No.174 of 2015 was instituted by the petitioners for a decree of partition to the extent of 75% share in Schedule-I, Schedule-II and Schedule-III properties to the plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 to 10. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Pir Bux Mian died leaving behind one Gafur Mian who only had share in Schedule-I, Schedule-II and Schedule-III lands. The defendant nos.1 to 4 filed a written statement pleading that Pir Bux Mian died leaving behind 3 sons namely, Habib Mian, Gafur Mian and Hanu Mian and on death of Habib Mian his son Md. Wahid Mian, who had 4 sons, were in cultivating possession of the suit land. The genealogical table appended to the plaint of the partition suit was disputed by the defendants giving a different description of the legal heirs and successors of Pir Bux Mian, Md. Wahid Mian and others. 3. The trial Judge, to settle the dispute between the parties in respect of the suit properties and to avoid multiplicity of litigations, found that the interveners were needed to be impleaded in the pending partition suit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interveners were strangers to the family of the plaintiffs and the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC were filed in connivance to the other defendants. 5. Whether the interveners were the legal heirs and successors of Pir Bux Mian, Habib Mian and Md. Wahid Mian or not, in view of the dispute raised by the defendant nos.1 to 4, the issue can be decided only during the trial of the partition suit. Prima-facie, the interveners having shown their interest in the suit properties have rightly been impleaded in the pending suit. 6. In the result, challenge to impugned order dated 02.02.2017 fails and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.