JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons of petitioner-3. The deceased Nalini was the mother of Petitioners 1 and 2. At an earlier stage she filed an application for eviction of the opposite parties on the allegation that they were tenants and she was the landlord. Opposite parties asserted before the House Rent Controller that they were not tenants, but the land belongs to them. The House Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. He accordingly dismissed the application for eviction. The present suit was filed by the practitioners as heirs of deceased Nalinibala for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit. He held that the plaintiffs have established their title and possession within 12 years of the suit. In appeal, defendants-opposite parties, raised a new point that petitioners 1 and 2 had four sisters who had not been, impleaded in the suit, and as such, the suit for eviction by some of the co-sharers was not maintainable. 3. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge did not record any finding on the merits of the case, but remanded it to the lower Court for adding the sisters as parties on a finding that they were necessary parties to the suit. It is against this judgment of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge that the civil revision has been filed. 4. Mr. Basu for the petitioners contends that the question of impleading the sisters having been raised for the first time in the first appellate Court, it should not have been allowed. The contention is sound. Order 1, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code lays down that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Order 1, rule 13 prescribes that all objections on the ground of nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived. 5. 5. The aforesaid two provisions are mandatory in character, and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in allowing such, questions of fact to be taken for the first time at the appellate stage. That apart, the law is well settled by a division Bench decision of this Court in Asghar Ali v. Narayan, 24 C.L.T. 224 (D.B.), that so far as the trespassers are concerned, any one co-sharer can file the suit on behalf of all. 6. In this case, it is not disputed that petitioners 1 and 2 have four sisters and despite the nonjoinder of sisters, petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to file a suit for eviction against the trespassers provided the suit is on behalf of all. Doubtless, in this case the suit was not on behalf of all the co-sharers, but the same defect could be rectified in the decree itself when objection as to nonjoinder of necessary parties was raised for the first time at the appellate stage. This position has been made dear in paragraph 13 of the judgment referred to above. Their Lordships observed thus : "But on the proposition of law that we have laid down in this judgment, it is not possible to dispose of the case finally as there is no finding of the lower appellate Court as to the real status of the defendants whether they are trespassers or tenants. We would therefore, remand the case to the lower appellate Court to come to a definite finding on the evidence already on record as to whether this is a suit for ejectment of tenants or mere trespassers. If he comes to the finding that it is a suit for ejectment of tenants, the suit must fail as not maintainable by one of the co-sharer-land-lords, but if he comes to the definite conclusion that the defendants 1 to 7 are mere trespassers, the suit must succeed and cannot be thrown off as not being maintainable. But the decree of the lower appellate Court must make it dear that it will ensure for the benefit of the other co-sharer. But the decree of the lower appellate Court must make it dear that it will ensure for the benefit of the other co-sharer. But nevertheless the plaintiff in execution of the decree will be entitled to evict the defendants from the suit land." In view of the aforesaid legal position, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge should not have remanded the case and should have disposed it of on merits. As no finding have been recorded on merits, the case must be reheard by the 2nd additional District Judge. 7. In the result, the impugned judgment of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge is set aside, and the case is remanded to him for disposal on merits. If he comes to the conclusion that the defendants are trespassers and the plaintiffs have title to evict them, then he would clarify in his judgment that the decree for eviction is on behalf of the sisters also. But the plaintiffs would be entitled to execute the decree without making the sisters parties. 8. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed with costs. 9. Hearing fee Rs. one hundred. Final Result : Allowed