ORDER 1. The present revision application is directed against order dated 5.8.2005 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 201 of 1979 pending before the learned Sub-Judge IV, Patna. By the said order, the learned trial Court has rejected an application filed by defendant No.1 (Originally defendant No.2) for adding Smt. Sahana Prasad being wife of plaintiff No. 1 opposite party as a defendant in partition suit. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties. 3. The first objection taken by Shri Singh, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties in with regard to maintainability of the civil revision application in view of the amended Section 115 of C.P.C. According to the learned counsel, no civil revision application was now maintainable as any decision by the trial Court on the question under consideration would not finally dispose of the suit. However, having heard the parties at length on more than one occasion, I do not propose to decide the issue either way because in view of the facts as to be noted hereinafter, I am satisfied that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application and the civil revision application is itself as such liable to be dismissed. 4. It is not in dispute that the present title partition suit was filed on 30.6.1979. In the plaint to the suit, certain, properties were given in respect of which partition was sought for. Original defendant No.1, who is filed his written statement on 13.12.1979. It appears even prior to filing written statement, original defendant No.1 was made the receiver of the joint family properties as mentioned in the schedule. He was subsequently, by order dated 21.4.1981, discharged from the receivership and he died in the year, 1988. As a consequence of his death, original defendant No.2 became defendant No. 1 whose petition has now been rejected. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that though the detailed written statement was filed on 13.12.1979, no steps by any party were taken to add Smt. Sahana Prasad as a defendant in the suit. As a consequence of his death, original defendant No.2 became defendant No. 1 whose petition has now been rejected. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that though the detailed written statement was filed on 13.12.1979, no steps by any party were taken to add Smt. Sahana Prasad as a defendant in the suit. It is for the first time after trial has commenced that on 31.1.2005, the present defendant No. 1 filed an application stating that certain property which had been procured in the name of the said person was in fact joint family property and as such, merely on this averment, she should be added as a necessary party to the suit. The trial Court, noticing the aforesaid facts, rejected the claim. The trial Court also noticed that it was after twenty six years that such an application was filed which application itself was withdrawn and again filed within a period of six months. In my view, the trial Court has committed no error of jurisdiction. 6. The facts aforesaid would show that the party being sought to be added with reference to provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., the application was filed after twenty six years. Defendant asserts merely on basis of bald averments in the written statement that the property is joint family property without anything more and therefore, prays for adding Smt. Sahana Prasad as a party. Here again I am afraid, it is not permissible. If addition of parties or properties are to be considered and allowed merely on such bald assertions then suits will become battleground wherein all and sundry properties would be drawn in. Something more was required. 7. Order 1 Rule 10 clearly confers jurisdiction on the trial Court to add a party and/or delete a party at any stage of proceedings if it is of the opinion that his presence is necessary for a just and fair decision in the suit. It is, therefore, open to the defendant to lead evidence to prima facie satisfy that the said property, standing in the name of Smt. Sahana Prasad, is a joint family property and it is only thereafter, the Court would be required to consider making her a party in the suit but not merely an bald averment unsupported by any material can she be added as a party at this stage. 8. 8. I, accordingly dismiss this application finding no merit. 9. I may, however, mention that the partition suit was instituted in the year, 1979, the trial Court would be well advised to expedite the disposal of the suit without unnecessary delay.