JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. - By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the order dated 18.08.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak, in C.S. No.133 of 2017-I, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the intervenor under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner has instituted the suit for partition. During pendency of the suit, the opposite party no.1 has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead him as defendant. It is stated that he has purchased the suit land. The plaintiff filed objection to the same, stating that the intervenor is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. Learned trial Judge came to hold that the intervenor has interest in the suit land and allowed the application. 3. Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed in respect of the Major Settlement Khata No.293, which consists of number of plots. He files a copy of the Record of Right and submits that name of the petitioner does not find place in the ROR. The intervenor is not the son of Brundaban Puhan. He has no direct interest in the suit. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 5. Order 1, Rule 10 CPC reads thus: "Suit in the name of wrong plaintiff - (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instated through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court this just." 6. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786 , the apex Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is 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. 7. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 , the apex Court held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in the cases cited supra, this Court finds that in the Major Settlement Khata No.293, the daughter of Brundaban Puhan has been recorded. The intervenor asserts that he is the son of Brundaban Puhan. He claims that he has purchased the property. He has direct interest over the subject in dispute. Thus intervenor is a necessary party. It is open for the plaintiff-petitioner to adduce evidence that intervenor is not the son of Brundaban Puhan. 9. In the wake of the aforesaid, the petition, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.