JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision filed against the order dated May 18, 1971 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar/Assistant Collector First Class, Sultanpur in Case No. 18/103 under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Sita Ram and others had filed a suit for division of holding impleading Bindeshwari and others. After the preparation of the formal decree but the preparation of the formal decree but the preparation of the final decree, Ram Kishore, Ram Lakhan, Ram Anjor and Dhondhi filed an application on September 21, 1970 for impleading in the suit on the ground that they also had interest in one of the plots in dispute. The trial court passed a peculiar order on this application on May 18, 1971 neither accepting the prayer for impleadment nor rejecting it, but merely saying that at present the application may be kept on file. This is a most unsatisfactory way of deciding judicial matters. In all judicial proceedings a Court is required to pass a self-contained, definite and speaking order. The order of the trial court does not fulfil the criteria and is, therefore, not an order in the eye of law at all. Further, in a suit for division of holding it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to implead all persons having interest or share in the holding. The fact that the applicants had interest in the holding in the shape of title over standing trees is, according to the trial court, admitted to all the parties. Thus, they should have been impleaded in the suit. The failure of the plaintiffs to implead them cannot now take away the right to be impleaded even after the preparation of the preliminary decree preparation of the preliminary decree but before the preparation of the final decree. The learned Additional Commissioner has gone astray in holding that the revision was pre-mature and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The revision is, by no means, pre-mature because after the preparation of the final decree the suit would have been finally decided and closed leaving nothing for the impleadment of the applicants. 4. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Addl. The revision is, by no means, pre-mature because after the preparation of the final decree the suit would have been finally decided and closed leaving nothing for the impleadment of the applicants. 4. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Addl. Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The trial court shall implead the applicants and thereafter proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.