JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 01.11.2004 passed by the trial Court dismissing his application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead Ram Kishan, as defendant in the suit. 3. Initially, Ram Kishan and Ram Govind, both filed a suit for partition of property, in dispute in the trial Court against the defendant Ghanshyam and Mst. Ramsakhi. The defendant No. 1 Ghanshyam filed his written-statement in favour of Ram Kishan, therefore, Ram Kishan moved an application to delete his name from the array of the plaintiffs in the suit, which was allowed and his name was deleted.4: The plaintiff Ram Govind moved, an application in the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to the effect that it is a suit in respect of partition of property, wherein preliminary as well as final decree has to be passed in respect of respective shares of co-sharer, and Ramkishan, being one of the co-sharer in the property is necessary party, therefore, his application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and It was wrongly dismissed by the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.5. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and contended that the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and no interference is called for in it, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court.7. The present suit relates to the partition of property in between fpur legal representatives of Bhonre Lal. Initially, two brothers were impleaded, as plaintiffs, but one of the plaintiff, after filing written-statement by defendant, moved an application for deleting his name from the array of the plaintiffs. The case of plaintiff No. 2 Ram Govind, who is now sole plaintiff in the suit is that it being a suit for division of property, all co-sharers are necessary party in the suit, otherwise, it will be very difficult to prepare a preliminary and final decree in the matter. The case of plaintiff No. 2 Ram Govind, who is now sole plaintiff in the suit is that it being a suit for division of property, all co-sharers are necessary party in the suit, otherwise, it will be very difficult to prepare a preliminary and final decree in the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified and I am of the view that the trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead Ram Kishan one of the co-sharer in the disputed property, as defendant in the present suit for partition of disputed property.8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.11.2004 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the defendant under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. is allowed. Ramkishan is impleaded, as defendant No. 3 in the suit. The trial court will now issue fresh summon to the defendant No. 3 Ram Kishan and will proceed further in the suit.There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******