ORDER Rampal Singh, J.- 1. The applicants have preferred this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sheopur in Civil Appeal No. 52-A/77 dated 15-4-77. 2. Short facts are that the applicants filed a suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent injunction against the defendant State. According to the plaint, the disputed laud was given to Shahbaj, the father of the plaintiffs on Patta by the then Zamindar on 25-4-1951 and since then Shahbaj the father of the applicants, was cultivating the suit land and after his death, the plaintiffs-applicants are in cultivating possession of the same. According to the plaint, they have acquired the rights of Pucca tenant and hence have become Bhumiswamis in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1959. 3. The defendant-State denied the contents of the plaint and alleged that the plaintiffs are trespassers. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit aggrieved by which the State preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sheopur. The appellant Court allowed the appeal of the State on the ground that the plaintiffs are three brothers and only two of them have filed the suit, the third son has not come before the Court nor he was impleaded as a party. Hence, he ordered the case to be remanded back to the trial Court for impleading the third son of Shahbaj in the suit and then proceed with the trial. This order of the appellate Court has been challenged in this revision. 5. On perusal of the written statement of the State, nowhere this objection was raised by the defendant-State. In absence of the objection as to non-joinder of the party, the learned Appellate Court himself decided to remand the case for impleading the third son as party. The learned appellate Court has completely lost sight of provisions of rule 13 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For convenience, this provision is being reproduced below: "13. In absence of the objection as to non-joinder of the party, the learned Appellate Court himself decided to remand the case for impleading the third son as party. The learned appellate Court has completely lost sight of provisions of rule 13 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For convenience, this provision is being reproduced below: "13. Objection as to non-joinder or mis-joinder-All objections on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived," It is, thus, a settled law and apparent from the very reading of rule 13 of Order 1, that the objection as to non-joinder or mis-joinder must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and the objection not so taken must be deemed to have been waived. Non-raising of a plea of non-joinder of necessary party requires proof of certain facts on the evidence of record at the earliest stage as enjoined by rule 13 and this would amount to waiver of the pleading of a fact on which such a plea could be established. It is also settled law that such objections if raised during the appellate stage without taking any objection in the written statement, the objection will not be allowed at all. All the questions of mis-joinder or non-joinder must be decided on the basis of allegations made in the plaint or written statement, i.e. the pleadings of the parties. In absence of a pleading to that effect, it was a wrong exercise of the jurisdiction by the appellate Court and, therefore, its order cannot be maintained. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Additional District Judge, Sheopur is directed to re-hear the civil appeal No. 52-A/77 and decided it on merits in accordance with law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.