Judgment :- D. Sreedevi, J. This revision Petition is directed against the order on I.A. No. 2036/90 in O.S. No. 25/83 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below. 2. By the impugned order the Court below allowed the application of the defendants 3 and 6 to implead supplemental defendants 13 to 15. Plaintiff filed O.S.25/83 for partition. Defendants 3 and 6 contested the suit. The third defendant contended that the plaint schedule property was taken on lease by him and claimed exclusive title over the same. The 6th defendant is the assignee of the third defendant. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition. On appeal by defendants 3 and 6, the appellate Court held that the question of tenancy raised by them has to be referred to the Land Tribunal and hence the case was remanded to the trial Court. 3. After the chief examination of the third defendant was over, the defendants 3 and 6 filed a petition to implead the assignees of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 to 12 in respect of the properties. The petitioner objected to the application for impleadment. The court below allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this revision. 4. The suit is for partition. Plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 to 12 have assigned their right in favour of strangers. So they are necessary parties to the suit. Eventhough they are not necessary parties to the suit at the preliminary decree stage, they are necessary parties to the suit at the final decree stage. Therefore the order of the court below allowing the application is legal and proper. The additional parties sought to be impleaded are directly interested in the suit as final decree may lead to a result which will affect them illegally. It is submitted that the assignees have not filed any application for impleading them. 5. Here, the application was filed by the third defendant. The third defendant, being the vendor, is interested in protecting the interest of his vendees. Therefore, the ground that the vendees did not come forward to get themselves impleaded is no ground to reject the application of the vendor. 5. Here, the application was filed by the third defendant. The third defendant, being the vendor, is interested in protecting the interest of his vendees. Therefore, the ground that the vendees did not come forward to get themselves impleaded is no ground to reject the application of the vendor. This Court in the decision reported in Beepathumma v. Tankamrna (1993(2) KLT 152) held that the provision contained in O.1 R.10(2) shall be interpreted as liberal and as wide as possible. 6. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Ramesh Hirachanda Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ((1992) 2 SCC 524) held that R.10(2) gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The court is empowered to add person whose presence is necessary for the prescribed purpose. If the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the suit, the court has power to add the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which will also avoid multiplicity of suits. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person, a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. In view of the above decisions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.