JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment of the trial court dated 21-9-1979 by which it rejected the impleadment application filed by Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker sons of Radha. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended by his order dated 19-9-1980 to quash the said order of the trial court and to remand the case after impleading them as a party. 2. The counsels for both the parties have been heard and I have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case are that suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by Raj Muni on 22-8-1973 against Radha, Gudari sons of Gharbharan and Gaon Sabha with a prayer that half share of the land in suit may be declared of the plaintiff and half of the defendant. The written statement has been filed by Radha on 5-2-1973, in a way he admits the claim of the plaintiff and has definitely asserted in paragraph 2 that the plaintiff has share and the other half goes to himself. Mum and Gudri. The relevant pedigree in this respect is as follows A preliminary decree was passed by the trial court on 4-7-1973. After that lots were prepared and there were objections and order of remand for the preparation of lots and during the preparation of the lots and final decree an application was filed by Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker sons of Radha to implead them as party. That application was rejected by the trial court on 21-9-1979. Against this order the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner recommended that may be impleaded and the order of the trial court dated 21-9-1979 be set aside and the case be remanded for rehearing. It is pointed out by him that Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker being vendees of Muni are necessary parties, hence they should be impleaded. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party who has filed an objection contended that the preliminary decree has been finally decided, the shares of the parties have been decided and now it is a question of shares between the defendants and which is not necessary for the disposal of his suit of partition. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party who has filed an objection contended that the preliminary decree has been finally decided, the shares of the parties have been decided and now it is a question of shares between the defendants and which is not necessary for the disposal of his suit of partition. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the party can be impleaded even after the finality of preliminary decree, the interest and right of co-tenant are supposed to be co-tenants shall be protected and decided in the suit of partition. He has further contended that the interest of the appellant Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker was put before the court by the written statement and Radha and also by the production of the registered sale deed executed by Muni. Hence it was the duty of the court to implead them as party and then to decide the case. 7. From the facts of the case it is clear that the shares of plaintiff and defendants (one half each) has been decided and it was so claimed by the defendant Radha also. The sons of Radha the present applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker also claimed right through sale deed executed by Muni whose right has been admitted by Radha in his written statement. Hence in no way it can be said that the father of the applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker has alleged or contended any thing against their interest but in a way he has protected the interest of transferees of Muni. Hence in no way it can be said that the father of the applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker has alleged or contended any thing against their interest but in a way he has protected the interest of transferees of Muni. Admittedly the transferees of Muni were not recorded over the land in suit (except over a few plots) and the khatauni filed by the plaintiff of the year 1366 fasli does not show that the applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker were recorded over the land in suit but all these points whether the applicants were recorded or not, whether any thing against their rights or interest is going to be decided or has been decided became material because the court in the preliminary decree has not allotted the shares of the defendants separately but has allotted the share of the defendants as a whole ; and in the written statement Radha himself has admitted the share of Muni then it cannot be said that interest of Muni from whom Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker want to derive title or interest has been in any way adversely effected. Moreover, now it is the question between the defendants ; in other way it is a question between father and his sons applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker. The contention of the learned counsel that the share of two defendants has been decided is not borne out from the decision of the courts below. When the share of the defendant has been jointly allotted as 1/2, and if the defendants want their share to be divided, they can do so. Moreover, it cannot be said that the applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker are barred from claiming their shares or the decision which has been given in their absence can in any way stop them in claiming their rights. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the trial court has held that Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker are necessary parties, even then the court did not make Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker and other transferees as party. When the transferees claimed through Muni and that claim is admitted by the defendant and not in any way denied by the plaintiff, it is not material in a partition suit to implead them as party nor it was the duty of the court to implead them as party. When the transferees claimed through Muni and that claim is admitted by the defendant and not in any way denied by the plaintiff, it is not material in a partition suit to implead them as party nor it was the duty of the court to implead them as party. The case is lingering on for so many years and the law is not for the sleeping party and the equity and justice is also in no way in favour of the applicants who have merely prayed that they may be (sic) may be permitted to participate in the future proceedings of the case (as prayed in the application filed on 24-8-1979) and while preparing the quarra (which has not yet become final) the shares of the plaintiff and defendants are to be allotted by Quarras. There is no necessity to send the case for retrial or to decide the case about the shares between the defendants. 9. The hypothetical argument put forward by the learned counsel in respect of the point of possession, can also be raised at the time of allotment of quarra. But on that basis there is no need to amend or modify the preliminary decree. One of the defendants Radha, father of some of the transferees, is a party and the quarra of defendant is to be made jointly. He can raise any objection at the time of the preparation of the final quarra. He has also protected the interest of transferees of Muni as is evident from the written statement filed by him. Hence the suit which is pending since long and where there is practically no dispute between the shares of the parties, in my opinion, it will not be just to again remand it for the benefit of none. 10. The quarras prepared or the objections raised by the parties never show that the quarras between the defendants have been made separately. 11. The learned counsel also relied on the ruling Pyare Lal v. Board of Revenue, 1973 R. D. page 357 in which it has been held that all disputes and claims and rights to be effectually and completely adjudicated and the shares finally specified in preliminary decree can be suitably modified or varied even if the preliminary decree had been passed. It is also held that a transferee or interested person can be made a party after the preliminary decree. It is also held that a transferee or interested person can be made a party after the preliminary decree. These propositions of law are based on the ground that the rights of the parties cannot be judicially determined in the absence of the person interested in the dispute and, therefore, he must be given an opportunity to be heard so that he may protect his rights or interest. In the present case nothing has been done against the rights or interest of the applicants Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker or other transferees. In other words their claims have been admitted by the defendants and the court has also protected their interest by not making separate shares of the defendants each. Only share has been allotted to defendants jointly and the defendant Radha always admitted the claim of Muni transferor of Uma Shanker and Vijai Shanker and other transferees. Hence that ruling is not applicable in the present case. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court. There is no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the fact of it in his order. 12. Moreover in the name of justice grave injustice will be done if the parties are permitted to litigate for nothing for so many years again on the technical grounds which is of no substantial use. Hence substantial justice is also not in favour of revisionist. 13. I, therefore, dismiss the revision. The parties shall bear their, own costs.