Judgment.-The short point in this revision is whether certain creditors who have obtained decrees can be made parties before the final decree-stage to a partition suit which has been filed by the sons of the judgment-debtor against the father judgment-debtor and where they have obtained a preliminary decree and in which proceedings these creditors could not intervene at an earlier stage and come on record by reason of the fact that the Official Receiver who was on record and supposed to be vigilant about their interests also did not, for reasons with which we are not concerned and over which he probably had no control himself represent and press their interests as well as the debtor’s interests. In my opinion these creditors can be brought on record after the passing of the preliminary decree and before the passing of the final decree for the following three reasons. First of all the sum and substance of a partition suit is the finding out of the assets and the liabilities and the distribution of the residue to the various coparceners entitled to share at the partition. There is no point in these creditors now being left out and their being relegated to the separate suits because that would only add to costs and trouble to these coparceners and reduce the shares which they would ultimately obtain. There is the authority for the proposition that in the circumstances the creditors can be brought on record as proper and or necessary parties before the final decree proceedings and they are, Ramaswami Chettiar v. Vellayappa Chettiar1, Venku Reddi v. Venku Reddi2, Baluswamy Iyer, In re3, Shanmuka Nadan v. Arunachalam Chetty4 , Subramania Iyer v. Sabapathy Iyer5 and Pannalal v. Mst. Naraini6. See also the provision made in Chapter III, Part II, Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, prescribed by this Court, Volume 1, 2nd edition, page 261 and following rules relating to partition suits under the Code and under the Partition Act, 1893. Thirdly even from the point of view of the respondent-sons before me this impleading is very necessary because it is their case that there was disruption of the joint family status even before the filing of the partition suit and that these debts are not binding upon them even if they are shown as true and subsisting debts. Thirdly even from the point of view of the respondent-sons before me this impleading is very necessary because it is their case that there was disruption of the joint family status even before the filing of the partition suit and that these debts are not binding upon them even if they are shown as true and subsisting debts. They cannot escape the decision of this question at one stage or other or in separate proceedings or here and they can agitate the matter better here and in fact the creditors are only assisting them to find out the character of the joint family status and the truth and validity and the binding nature of these debts and avoid further complications for themselves. Therefore looked at from any point of view the creditors can be brought on record as proper or necessary parties to the partition suit which is still in the stage of a commissioner having been appointed and report being filed and no final decree having been passed and the passing of which being stayed. This will obviate vexatious multiplicity of litigation. The result is the order of the lower Court is set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and both parties are at liberty to adduce any evidence which they desire in support of the contentions advanced by them. The costs of these Civil Revision Petitions will be provided for in the ultimate decree and judgment to be passed in the suit. R.M. ----- Petitions allowed.