JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member - This is a revision application against the judgement and order dated December 13, 1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in appeal No. 211 of 1978-78/Mathura. 2. The facts are briefly that one Bahadur Singh filed a partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of land on which he and Ram Singh were recorded as co-tenants. Ram Singh did not contest the suit and filed a compromise according to which lots were allocated by the learned trial court on July 4, 1979. Sub-Sequent to this order, one Mohan Lal applied to the court claiming that Bahadur Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of his share in the land in dispute in favour of Mohan Lal and others on July 2, 1979 and praying that the order dated July 4, 1979 be set aside as on that date, Bahadur Singh had no title left in the land in dispute. This prayer was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that Mohan Lal had not been a party in the original partition suit. 3. An appeal against this order has been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner who has remanded the case for fresh trial with the direction that Mohan Lal should be given an opportunity to file objection to the lots before the case is decided afresh. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist Ram Singh has argued that the decree against which no appeal was maintainable and further that Mohan Lal was not a party to the original suit and had, therefore, no right to go in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. 5. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of this argument in view of the present fact that the order of the learned trial court dated July 4, 1979 stands vitiated by the mere fact that it partitions the land in dispute between certain parties, one of which was not a co-tenant on July 4, 1979. In a partition suit, all the co-tenants must be impleaded as parties. On July 2, 1979, Mohan Lal had become a co-tenant by virtue of a sale-deed executed by Bahadur Singh by virtue of the same fact. Bahadur Singh was no longer a co-tenant. In a partition suit, all the co-tenants must be impleaded as parties. On July 2, 1979, Mohan Lal had become a co-tenant by virtue of a sale-deed executed by Bahadur Singh by virtue of the same fact. Bahadur Singh was no longer a co-tenant. Once this admitted fact had been brought to the notice of the learned trial court, it was its patent duty to review and set aside its order dated July 4, 1979 and after impleading the new co-tenant as a party, and to decide the case afresh. In these circumstances, the order of remand and the direction given by the Additional Commissioner need not be interfered with. 6. The revision application is, therefore, rejected.