ORDER : The petitioners, who have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for their impleadment in Title Appeal No.35 of 2015, are aggrieved of the order dated 03.06.2017 by which their application filed in the pending appeal has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners who have a substantial interest in the suit land were necessary party to the suit and therefore they are entitled for their impleadment in the pending Title Appeal No.35 of 2015 to protect their rights over the suit land. 3. The case pleaded by the petitioners is that they are in possession over the land comprised under Khata No.9 within Plot No.984, area 1.75 acres out of 7 acres (wrongly written in the application as 7 acres out of 1.75 acres) in village-Sijua, P.S. Ichak, District-Hazaribagh for the last 50 years. They were not made parties to Title Suit No.106 of 2006 which was instituted by one Jagdish Mahto for declaration of his right, title and interest over the schedule 'A' land over which the petitioners have also laid a claim. 4. Title Suit No.106 of 2006 was instituted by one Jagdish Mahto for a decree for declaration of his title over schedule 'A' land. The plaintiff has laid a claim over the suit schedule 'A' property by virtue of Hukumnama executed in the year 1937 and the defendants have pleaded that the suit land came in possession of their father through settlement from the ex-landlord Sahadat Ali on payment of salami of Rs.125/-and rent of Rs.1.12 annas through Hukumnama dated Baisakh sudi 7 Roz Sambat 1990 sal (in the year 1933). One of the issues framed in the suit was mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. The trial judge has held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the State of Bihar; the suit land is recorded as gairmajurwa khas land. Title Suit No.106 of 2006 was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 29.05.2015 and the plaintiff has preferred Title Appeal No.35 of 2015. 5. More than 10 years after the suit was instituted, the petitioners have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on 08.01.2016 in Title Appeal No.35 of 2015. Title Suit No.106 of 2006 was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 29.05.2015 and the plaintiff has preferred Title Appeal No.35 of 2015. 5. More than 10 years after the suit was instituted, the petitioners have filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on 08.01.2016 in Title Appeal No.35 of 2015. In their application for impleadment in which they have also filed an application in the nature of an affidavit (wrongly labelled as under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) they have asserted that they are in possession over the suit land for the last 50 years and this fact is known to the people in the locality and the police-report also supports this fact. 6. No doubt a person who has a substantial interest in the suit property and his interest is not mere peripheral can be made a party to the suit, but whether a person has a substantial interest in the suit property must reflect in his application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. Therefore, the application for addition of party must prima-facie disclose that the person who intends his addition in the pending suit or appeal has a substantial interest over the suit property; it must not be a pretension of the party. 7. The trial judge has noticed that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim that they are in possession over 1.7 acres land at village-Sijua. In their application under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC as well as the affidavit dated 07.04.2016 the petitioners do not claim their ownership over the suit land. Their only claim is that they are in possession over the suit land. In a suit which was instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff's right, title and interest, the petitioners' presence is therefore not necessary. They are not the persons who can throw a challenge to the ownership claim of the plaintiff or the defendants over the suit land. Evidently, they cannot claim that they have a substantial interest involved in the suit [refer, “Amit Kumar Shaw & Another Vs. Farida Khatoon & Another” reported in (2005) 11 SCC 403 ]. 8. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.06.2017 passed in Title Appeal No.35 of 2015, the writ petition is dismissed.