JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for partition in respect of property in dispute against the respondent defendants with the allegations that the property in dispute is a joint Hindu family property and the plaintiff and defendants-respondents ate co-sharers therein. He prayed that the property in dispute be partitioned by meets and bounds and his share be demarcated. The notice of the suit way given to defendants-respondents. Respondents Nos. 23.9 and 10 disputed the share of the plaintiff in the property in dispute but others admitted the same. The learned trial court after framing the issues directed the parties to produce their evidence on 21.4.1990 which was a date fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff. Neither the plaintiff nor any of his witnesses were present and a request was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff for adjournment. The request was opposed on behalf of some of the respondent-defendants. The learned trial court vide the impugned order passed on that closed the evidence of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 2. Shri Sharma contended that the suit was one of partition and right of the plaintiff in the property in dispute had been admitted by some of the defendants and as such the learned trial court could not have rejected the claim of share of the plaintiff. The fact that some of the defendant-respondents had admitted the share of the plaintiff in the property in dispute is not disputed. Smt. Vidya Devi respondent No. 5 who has appeared in person and the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 have also not opposed the appeal. It is not disputed that in a suit for partition all the co-sharers are plaintiffs. The right of the plaintiff having been admitted by some of the defendants the learned trial court ought to have taken evidence of the defendant who denied the right of the plaintiff and claimed to be exclusive owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a Will. In these circumstances in my view it is a fit case where the appeal should he accepted and the case should be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision according to law but with the condition that the appellant would pay Rs. 200/- as costs besides the cost of Rs. In these circumstances in my view it is a fit case where the appeal should he accepted and the case should be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision according to law but with the condition that the appellant would pay Rs. 200/- as costs besides the cost of Rs. 51/- which is said to have been earlier imposed by the learned trial Court to respondents No. 2, 3, 9 and 10. In this view of the matter the appeal is accepted the impugned order dated 21-4-1989 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision according to law. Parties should appear before the learned trial Court on 30-4-1990 on which date the appellant shall also pay the entire cost including the cost of Rs. 51/- said to be earlier imposed by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court would fix the dates for recording the evidence. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal accepted. *******