Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. In this revision application petitioners (defendants 4 and 5) assail an order in so far as deliting paragraph 12 as well as their names from the plaint, in a suit filed for partition of a house by the opposite party No. 1, on her application dated 24th September, 1986. 2. The opposite party No. 1 in her petition asserted that defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are not necessary parties to the suit nor has any relief been claimed against them and they are performa defendants and thus their names and paragraph 12 be delited. 3. The opposite party in her plaint claimed that in the house Syed Kazim, S Sharfuddin (sons of S. Abdul Mazid) and Sulaiman Ashraf (son of Abdul Hamid) bad 1/3 shares each, that Kazim died leaving behind his brother who inherited his share; that names of Sharfuddin and Ashraf were mutated in the Corporation and continued in record upto March 1978; that both of them were issueless and old and being looked after by their tenant Abdul Shakoor (father of the plaintiff) to whom they orally gifted the house; that Sharfuddin and Ashraf left for Pakistan and supposed to be dead as they have not been heard over 12 years; that Abdul Shakoor died on 6-4-79 leaving behind the plaintiff and three daughters; that even the plaintiff as got 14/3 Annas interest, defendants 1 to 3 in Collusion deny her title even in the house and hence the suit. 4. That the opposite party No. 1 also stated the following facts in her plaint. 10. That Abdul Shakoor was an old and feeble person. He was a cronic patient of Asthma and remained almost confirmed to bed. He had no male member to lookafter him except his daughters and his wife. There was one Md. Yusuf the father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in front of the house of Abdus Shakoor. He was a most cunning Court bird. He remained lying in wait to take advantage of the weakness of Abdus Shakoor. 11. That during the fresh assessment enforced on 1-4-78 Md. Yusuf the father of defendants No. 4 and 5 with the help of the then Assessment Officer managed to get his name mutated in place of Syed Sharfuddin and Sulaiman Ashraf and as such the house in suit since then stands record in the name of Md. 11. That during the fresh assessment enforced on 1-4-78 Md. Yusuf the father of defendants No. 4 and 5 with the help of the then Assessment Officer managed to get his name mutated in place of Syed Sharfuddin and Sulaiman Ashraf and as such the house in suit since then stands record in the name of Md. Yusuf, son of H.A. Latiff. Md. Yusuf in no way was concerned with the house in suit. He was not related in any way and as such he had no right, title and interest in the house in suit. He was merely a stranger. Any document in possession of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 showing the right, title and interest is forged and manupulated one. The same has been created only with the view to deprive the right of the real claimants. 12. That Md. Yusuf died on 10-6-82 and left behind his sons defendants No. 4 and 3 his legal heirs. They have been included as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in this case in order to avoid future complication. 13. That the cause of action for the suit arose at Mohalla Sadar Gall P.S. Khajekalan, Patna City, district Patna within the jurisdiction of this Court where the house in suit, situates. It arose on 1-4-78 when Md. Yusuf succeeded in getting his name mutated illegally by colluding of the Officers of the Municipality and on 6-4-79 when Abdus Shakoor died and on 12-8-81 when the plaintiff asked the defendants No. 1 to 3 for partition which they denied. 5. That the petitioner in their written statement took up a stand that the suit house was gifted to their father Md. Yusuf on 22-4-1977 by Sharfuddin and Ashraf, who was earlier, a tenant Md. Yusuf also got his name mutated in the Corporation. The tenants of the house including defendant No. 1 attained to him but defendant No. 1 who, since April 1982 faild to pay the rent, brought this suit in collusion with her daughters-plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. In their rejoinder to the amendment petition the petitioners also stated that now realising that there is no chance of succeeding the suit, in which issues were framed as far as in the year 1983, the petition in question has been filed. 6. In their rejoinder to the amendment petition the petitioners also stated that now realising that there is no chance of succeeding the suit, in which issues were framed as far as in the year 1983, the petition in question has been filed. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the prayer of the plaintiff holding that the issues involved in the suit can be adjudicated property in the absence of Defendants 4 and 5; that it is ordinarily the duty of the plaintiff to choose the names of the persons whom she wants to make defendant and she cannot be debarred from deliting the name of the person who she considers unnecessary; and that the defendants cannot object to the said prayer because a decree, if any, passed in the suit shall not be binding on them. 7. Mrs. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Subordinate Judge had misdirected himself in not appreciating the well settled principle governing amendments and legal position emerging out the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that in the relief portion of the plaint to relief was claimed so far as the petitioners are concerned but nevertheless apart from that fact the suit being for partition, the question of title of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 was implicit in it. The plaintiff categorically denied the title of their father Yusuf, which was also supported by defendants I to 3 which was opposed by the petitioners asserting their title in the house and non-title of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. She further submits that even the cause of action was stated to have arisen on 1-4-1976 when Md. Yusuf got his name mutated in the records of the Corporation. 8. Mr. Mojibul Haque, learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, supports the impugned order and places reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court. 9. She further submits that even the cause of action was stated to have arisen on 1-4-1976 when Md. Yusuf got his name mutated in the records of the Corporation. 8. Mr. Mojibul Haque, learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, supports the impugned order and places reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court. 9. Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: Court may strike or aid points.--(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 10. In Daitari Prasad Naik V/s. Umakanta Nayak AIR 1971 Ori. 44 , it was held that the expression "question involved in the suit" occurring in Order I, Rule 10(2) need not be conned only to question as between the parties to a partition litigation and that third parties are also entitled to be impleaded under the rule, as parties to the suit provided (i) there must be a right to some relief against the party not joined and (ii) the presence of the absent party should be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. It was further held that a third person who, in a suit for partition of property, claim title to property adverse to the plaintiff and defendant is a necesssary party and is entitled to be impleaded in the suit. I fully agree with the said view. 11. That legal position apart from paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint extracted by me it is clear that the plaintiff wanted a declaration of non, title of the petitioners which was supported by her mother and sisters in the suit which the learned Subordinate Judge completely lost sight of. Thus the petitioners were a necessary party. 12. In fairness to Mr. Thus the petitioners were a necessary party. 12. In fairness to Mr. Mojibul Haque, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, I must proceed to consider his submissions as well. His submission is that as no relief was claimed against defendant Nos. 4 and 5 they were not necessary parties. No cause of action was also stated in the plaint againt them. In support of his submission he relies upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in Malyan Patel Basavana V/s. Lakka Narayana reported in AIR 1931 Mad 284. In Basvana, (supra) in a suit filed as a representative raiyat of a village for a declaration of the right of the plaintiffs village to take water to its fields from a particular point, it was held that no cause of action is mentioned against a party to a suit and no relief was claimed against him and it will be improper and unnecessary to implead such a person. The judgment of the Madras High Court is clearly distinguishable. 13. The words cause of action means bundle of facts. The plaint categorically mentions of the petitioners and their father claiming title by them in the house which the plaintiff denied and the plaintiff wanted declaration of her title which was supported by defendants 1 to 3. 14. Thus, I do not find any merit in the submissions of of Mr. Haque. 15. The Court below acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction in deliting the names of the petitioners as well as paragraph 12 from the plaint. For the reasons aforesaid I hold that the impugned order is vitiated on account of jurisdictional errors in so far the amendment related to in delition of paragraph 12 and the names of the petitioners is concerned. 16. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order to the extent indicated is set aside but in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to cost.