JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-1, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No. 268 of 2016 whereby he has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the applicant-respondent 1st set under Order-1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for adding respondent 1st set as defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a partition suit vide Partition Suit No. 268 of 2016 claiming his 1/7 share in the entire suit property as appended in Schedule I situated in village Kaithi, P.S. Goh, District-Aurangabad and Schedule II of the suit land situated in village-Dumra and Narsan, P.S-Daudnagar, Haspura, which he derived from his maternal grand father, namely, Sheo Bhajan Singh and further sought relief to hold the compromise decree in Partition Suit No. 297 of 2015 illegal, invalid and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff-petitioner. He submitted that respondent 1st set has no concern either with the Schedule I or Schedule II property, but they filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein to add them as intervenor defendants in the Partition Suit No. 268 of 2016 on 10.03.2017, which has been erroneously allowed by the court below. He contended that the grounds on which the application filed by the applicant-respondent 1st set has been allowed is contrary to the provisions prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I find that the applicant-respondent 1st set had claimed before the court below that they are necessary parties as they belong to the family of common ancestor. They also contended that the partition suit filed by the petitioner is collusive in nature and has been filed just in order to deny them their share in the property. 5. The court below granted sufficient time to the petitioner to contest, but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The only objection taken by him before the court below in the objection petition filed on 10.03.2017 was that earlier also an application was filed on behalf of the applicant-respondent 1st set, but the same was rejected. 5. The court below granted sufficient time to the petitioner to contest, but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The only objection taken by him before the court below in the objection petition filed on 10.03.2017 was that earlier also an application was filed on behalf of the applicant-respondent 1st set, but the same was rejected. However, the court below has held that the earlier application was rejected for want of prosecution. The court below also examined the documents submitted by the applicant-respondent 1st set and it formed a prima facie opinion that the applicant-respondent 1st set had legitimate claim of share in the disputed land. 6. Order 1, Rule 10 provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 7. Since the suit is for partition and the applicants-respondent 1st set has claimed that he has vital interest in the suit land as they belong to common ancestor and on examination of documents the court below formed a prima facie opinion that the respondent 1st set had legitimate claim of share in the disputed land, no error can be found with the order passed by the trial court whereby it allowed him to be impleaded as defendant. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.