JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - These are six connected reference made by learned Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, recommending to allow the revision applications and the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Mainpuri dated 6.7.1977 cancelling the parties of the applicant dated 2.11.1970 and to remand the cases for fresh trail after impleading L.M.C relying on 1976 R.D. page 240. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding six references together and have perused the record. This order shall govern all the six references files. Its copy shall be placed on connected references files. 3. It has been argued that L.M.C. was a necessary party and if it was not impleaded the proceeding should be quashed and the cases should not be remanded for fresh trial as has been held in Shyam Behari v. Sheo Muni S.A. No. 521 of 1968-69 decided on 16.5.1975 by Sri S. Mubarak Hasen, Member. 4. It has been argued in reply that L.M.C is a necessary party according to rule 172-A(2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, therefore, the whole proceeding was vitiated and the recommendation for remanding the case is justified. 5. The above second appeal in a case under old section 108(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decided by Mr. S. Mubarak Hasan relying on 1963 Shitladin and others v. Board of Revenue and others A.I.R. 1963 Alld. 549. The Full Bench held that : "In a suit under Section 59, U.P. Tenancy Act or appeal arising out of it the Zamindar whether he was the Land-holder or not, was not an essential, necessary or even a proper party after 1.7.1952 i.e. after the abolition of the Zamindari under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act 1951". 6. Mr. Justice Desai as he then was held that: "In respect of every suit there are certain persons who are essential to be impleaded as defendants; if they are not, no relief can be granted against them or in the suit. These persons fall in two classes, (1) of those against whom the relief is sought, and (2) those whom the law requires to be impleaded as defendants, even though no relief is sought against them. Under order 1, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code all persons against whom any right to relief is alleged to exist should be impleaded as defendants. These persons fall in two classes, (1) of those against whom the relief is sought, and (2) those whom the law requires to be impleaded as defendants, even though no relief is sought against them. Under order 1, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code all persons against whom any right to relief is alleged to exist should be impleaded as defendants. No relief can be granted against a person who has not been impleaded as a defendant. If relief can be claimed against two persons, but only one is impleaded as a defendant relief can be granted against him only ; not only can no relief be granted against the other but also the fact that the other has not been impleaded will not cause relief to be refused against the one impleaded see Rule 9 of Order 1. There are various provisions in statutes requiring certain persons to be impleaded as defendants, such as order XXXIV, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code Sessions 49, 59, 183 and 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. If these persons are not impleaded as defendants the suit will fail. Order 1 Rule 9 is subject to any special or local law, or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law, vide Section 4, Civil Procedure Code Consequently, it any law prescribes that a certain person must be impleaded as a defendant, even though no relief is sought against him, the failure to implead him will be fatal to the suit, notwithstanding the provisions in Order 1 Rule 9. Persons who are not essential to be impleaded as defendants to a suit again fall in two classes (1) of those who are in some way interested in or connected with the relief sought against others and (2) of others, who are not at all interested in, or connected with it. Persons of the latter class must not be impleaded as defendants at all, but persons of the former class may be impleaded as proper parties at the discretion of the plaintiff by way of abundant caution, or to avoid future litigation and the relief will not be refused on the ground that they have not been impleaded." 7. Persons of the latter class must not be impleaded as defendants at all, but persons of the former class may be impleaded as proper parties at the discretion of the plaintiff by way of abundant caution, or to avoid future litigation and the relief will not be refused on the ground that they have not been impleaded." 7. Rule 178-A(2) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules provides that:- Rule 178-A(2) - "Where the Collector makes an enquiry under sub-section (4) of section 198, the Land Management Committee and the allottee of Land shall be made parties and give an opportunity of being heard before final orders are passed". 8. Mr. S. Mubarak Hasan while deciding the appeal held that the order of the lower appellate court has become final against Juet Bandhah, Chakeri and Neur who were not impleaded as party in second appeal and held that second appeal and held that second appeal abated against respondent no. 12 who died more than a year back, then held that the L.M.C. was a necessary party in a proceeding under Section 198(2) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act but is this case it had not been impleaded ; that impleadment of L.M.C. was fatal the order of the lower appellate court is correct and there is no illegality in it. Appeal is dismissed with costs in the light of the above observations. 9. It is clear that the order of the lower appellate court had become final against three persons and the appeal had abated against respondents no. 12, the appeal had no life but still it was decided as above. 10. In Firm Shiam Lal Joti Prasad v. Dhanpat Rai A.I.R. 1925 Alld. 788 (DB)(HC) It has been held to the effect that if the appellate court is of opinion that a certain person is a necessary party, and ought to have been impleaded, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the court of first instance with a direction that the court should implead that person and then proceed to dispose of the case. 11. 11. It has been held in Noor Mohammed and others v. Zainul Abdin and others 1948 A.W.R. 375 (H.C.) as follows: "In a partition suit, not only must the parties themselves take care that they being before the court all persons who are or may be interested in that it is proposed to divide but that the duty lies upon the Court itself in matters such as these to see that it has before it everyone whose presence is necessary to enable it to make the declaration which it is required to make by order XX, rule 18, if all the persons interested have never been before the Court, and the appellate court is of opinion that a certain person is a necessary party, and ought to have been impleaded, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the Court of first instance with a direction that the court should implead that person and then proceed to dispose of the case". 12. In a proceeding under Section 198 of Act I of 1951 in a suo motu action or action started suo motu information of any other party L.M.C. is a statutory and necessary party like the allottee under Rule 178-A(2) and if by mistake the L.M.C. is not made a party the whole proceeding is vitiated, therefore in such cases as held in 1926 Allahabad page 768 (D.B.) (H.C.) and in 1940 A.W.R. page 375 (H.C.) the proper procedure in such cases is to remand the case to the trial court directing to implead the L.M.C. also then to decide the matter according to law. Therefore, the recommendation of the learned Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra is highly justified and is accepted and the agreement of the learned counsel for the applicant is repelled. 13. In view of the above these revision applications are hereby allowed and impugned orders of the Additional Collector, Mainpuri dated 5.7.1977 are set aside and the cases are remanded to his court for deciding them afresh after impleading the L.M.C. in each case permitting the parties to adduce their evidence.