JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a revision against the order dated June 11, 1971 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division in Appeal No. 590 in a suit under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of due notice. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has passed a one line order as follows : 'Heard. Application has not force. Rejected.' This order was passed on the application of the revisionist Srimati Basdei, daughter of Maya Ram to the effect that she should be impleaded as a necessary party in the appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner arising out of the suit Sunder v. Munna and others under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as she herself was the daughter of Maya Ram, a co-tenure-holder in the land. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the suit was one for partition and all person interested in the property were necessary parties, and the learned Additional Commissioner has acted illegally and with material irregularity in not allowing the application. The learned counsel has also contended that the learned Addl. Commissioner has disposed of the application without considering the materials placed on the record and that he had no jurisdiction to reject the application without assigning proper and cogent reasons and without applying his mind to the merits of the application. 4. Under Order 1, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure all persons may be joined in a suit as plaintiffs in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Similarly under Rule 3, all persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction of series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where, if separate suit were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, Order I provides as follows : "Court may strike out or add parties. - (2) 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 party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and 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 effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit, be added." 5. The application of the revisionist Srimati Basdei clearly establishes a prima facie case that she is an interested party in the suit. Thus, the learned Additional Commissioner has acted illegally and with material irregularity in not allowing her application for amendment under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. The learned Additional Commissioner in passing the one line order has neither considered any material on record nor assigned any reasons. Thus, I would hold that the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to apply his mind to the merits of the application and has also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. 6. The suit in question was filed by Sunder claiming himself to be the son of Maya Ram for the division of holding in which Maya Ram was a co-tenure-holder. Sunder did not implead Srimati Basdei, the present revisionist, but Srimati Basdei has claimed in her application that she is in fact the daughter of Maya Ram and Sunder is not the son of Maya Ram but is the sone of Data Din who was father's father's sons's son of Maya Ram. Whatever be the truth behind the conflicting claims of Sunder and Srimati Basdei, there can be no doubt at all that Srimati Basdei should have been impleaded as a party for a proper adjudication of the suit. The order of the learned Additional commissioner thus apart from constituting failure to exercise jurisdiction is also quite illegal and perverse. 7. Whatever be the truth behind the conflicting claims of Sunder and Srimati Basdei, there can be no doubt at all that Srimati Basdei should have been impleaded as a party for a proper adjudication of the suit. The order of the learned Additional commissioner thus apart from constituting failure to exercise jurisdiction is also quite illegal and perverse. 7. Accordingly, I allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner and directed that he shall proceed to hear the first appeal in accordance with law after impleading the revisionist as a party.