ORDER : The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Trial Court passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.147/2017. 2. The present petitioner has filed impleading application in O.S.No.147/2017. The petitioner is asserting possessory rights over the petition land. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed under Bombay Agriculture Debt Relief Act is questioned before this Court and the same is pending for consideration. Further the petitioner has also contended that the decree passed in an injunction suit is questioned in R.A.No.77/2014. In this background, the petitioner has filed the application seeking permission to come on record as party to the suit in O.S.No.147/2017. 3. The Court below having examined the rival contentions has recorded a finding that the claim made by the petitioner herein has been negatived in earlier litigations. The Court below has also recorded a finding that this Court in a writ petition has held that the Bombay Agriculture Debt Relief Act is inapplicable to the State of Karnataka, in view of commencement of Karnataka Agriculture Debt Relief Act. 4. The respondents are asserting their rights pursuant to decree passed in O.S.No.380/1940. The present suit is one for partition and separate possession. The petitioner is yet to establish his right. 5. In that view of the matter, the presence of petitioner is not at all necessary for effective adjudication in interse dispute between the respondents’ family members. The object of the Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not to change the scope or character of suit by adding new parties and to enable them to litigate their own independent claim. The Court below has rightly rejected the application. 6. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. In that view of the matter, writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly same is dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration, accordingly the same is rejected.