ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the intervenor applicants whose petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 99 of CPC has been dismissed by the Executing Court. 2. The execution case arises out of Partition Suit No. 243 of 1993 in which preliminary decree was prepared on 30.01.1996 and it attained finality after dismissal of the First Appeal against it. The final decree was also prepared and after preparation of final decree, execution case was filed in 2013. As per the preliminary decree, half share was allotted to plaintiff nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Bilaso Debi and Bashanti Debi and half share to the defendants over the suit land. 3. As per the finding, recorded by the learned Trial Court, it was held that the plaintiffs and defendants both belong to the same joint family. They were also the heirs and descendants of Jugal Sahu but they were deliberately not impleaded in the suit. The intervenor applicants being Shiv Narayan Sahu and Ramu Sahu were not impleaded, however, his brothers Sitaram Sahu, Satya Narayan Sahu and Vijay Sahu were impleaded in the suit as well as in the final decree. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that being a co-parcener of the Hindu family, these intervenor applicants were the necessary party, as they were left out and, therefore, the application was filed for their impleadment at the execution stage. However, a separate Partition Suit bearing No. 389 of 2014 has also been filed by the petitioners for getting their shares in the joint family property. However, after coming into force of the amended provisions of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC requirement of filing separate suit for the same relief has been obviated. The petitioners have a good cause to be impleaded at the execution stage so that their share can be carved out. Reliance is placed on (1997) 3 SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. 5. It is argued that the petitioners’ claim be adjudicated in the present execution case in view of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. 6. Reliance is placed on (1997) 3 SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. 5. It is argued that the petitioners’ claim be adjudicated in the present execution case in view of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and on perusal of the records of the case, it is apparent that the final decree for partition with respect to the schedule property has attained finality with respect to the following parties: Plaintiffs – Bilaso Devi, Motilal Sahu, Basanti Devi Defendants– Haria Sahu, Ropan Sahu, Arti Devi, Bhondo Devi. 7. The petitioners claim that they are the heirs and descendants from the line of Bilaso Devi-plaintiff no. 1 and were not impleaded in the suit. It is claimed by these petitioners-intervener-applicants that they are heirs and descendants of Jugal Sahu, who was the second husband of Bilaso Devi. The following genealogy has been relied upon : 8. It is quite surprising that Petitioners claim to be coparcener of the joint family, but were blissfully ignorant about the pendency of suit since long, and at no stage, they took any step for being impleaded and after the suit has attained finality, the instant civil misc. petition has been filed. In any case, if these petitioners will have any share, it will be from the area apportioned to plaintiff no. 1 Bilaso Devi in the final decree. The petitioners will have liberty to pursue their partition suit against the members from the line of Bilaso Devi. 9. Furthermore, petitioners cannot be said to be strangers in terms of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC as they claim their shares in the joint family property through plaintiff no. 1, who was a party in the suit. If such petitions are allowed, then partition decree will never be executed, as one or other person will file objection seeking adjudication under Order XXI Rule-99 of CPC, claiming them to be the heir and descendants of any one of the parties to the suit. It is true that in a partition suit each of the party is deemed to be a plaintiff and can seek to carve out his share in a final decree, but this will not apply in a case where a party moves the court after final decree proceeding. 10. It is true that in a partition suit each of the party is deemed to be a plaintiff and can seek to carve out his share in a final decree, but this will not apply in a case where a party moves the court after final decree proceeding. 10. Under the circumstance, after the partition suit has been concluded and attained finality, preliminary and the final decree has been drawn, impleadment at this stage cannot be allowed. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.