JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. Both writ petitions were heard together. Order however, is being passed in the leading Case No. 67940 of 2013. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and the learned Standing Counsel. No one has appeared for the other respondents, even though Vakalatnamas have been filed for respondent no.3, 4 and 5. After Ram Khelawan died in the year 2000, two claimants filed their mutation applications. One application was filed by Heerawati Devi and the other was filed by Ajit Yadav, the respondent no.4. The mutation application of Ajit Yadav was allowed on 11.11.2002. However, when the appeal subsequently filed by Heerawati was allowed on 20.11.2002, a revision being Revision No.122/2003 was filed by the respondent no.4 (Ajit Yadav) which was allowed on 28.7.2004. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2004 the petitioner Heerawati filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. This revision was numbered as Revision No. 570 of 2006. In it an interim order was also passed on 11.7.2006 which was to the effect that the order dated 28.7.2004 was to remain in abeyance. In the meantime, the petitioner, aware of the fact that orders passed in mutation proceedings did not confer any substantial rights, also filed a suit under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 15.10.2014 for getting her rights declared. This Suit was numbered as Suit No. 43 of 2004. In this suit the respondents no.4 and 5 alone were impleaded as parties. Simultaneously, however one Siya Ram, the respondent no.3 also filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which was numbered as Suit No. 49/110/2008 for being declared a Bhumidhar of the estate of Ramkhilawan and obtained a decree dated 7.12.2011 in which the plaintiff therein was declared to be the Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. Since, the decree dated 7.12.2011 was ex parte vis a vis the petitioner, she filed a revision which was numbered as Revision No. 32 of 2012. When, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2013, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Since, the decree dated 7.12.2011 was ex parte vis a vis the petitioner, she filed a revision which was numbered as Revision No. 32 of 2012. When, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2013, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Since a buyer from Ajit Yadav, respondent no.7, Durga Wati Devi was also ousted by the ex parte decree dated 7.12.2011 from having any title over the suit property, she filed an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC for setting aside the decree dated 7.12.2011. This application remained pending. However as the petitioner, Heerawati Devi had filed her revision against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2011 which was numbered as No. 32 of 2012 and the record was summoned in that revision including the application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC of Durgawati Devi, the latter also filed a revision against the ex parte decree dated 7.12.2011. This Revision along with Revision No.32/2012 were heard together and were dismissed by the same order which was dated 16.11.2013. Against the order dated 16.11.2013 and the ex parte decree dated 7.11.2012, Durga Wati Devi also filed a Writ Petition No. 2713 of 2014. Leaned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions have made the following submissions: (I) When the inheritance regarding the property of Ram Khelawan was being considered and mutation proceeding which were initiated by the respondent no.4 and the petitioner had reached the Board of Revenue and an interim order was also granted by the Board of Revenue then the petitioner Heerawati Devi ought to have been impleaded in the suit which was filed by Siya Ram, especially when the order of the Board of Revenue dated 11.7.2006 was incorporated in the Khatauni, which was known to Siya Ram. (II) In the suit filed by Siya Ram, Ajit Yadav was a party. The latter was fully aware of the fact that Heerawati was contesting for her title tooth and nail and yet he had not informed the interestedness of Heerawati to the Court. (III) Even otherwise when the Revisional Court was informed about the litigation which was pending before the Board of Revenue where the petitioner was claiming to be a legatee of the deceased Ram Khelawan, it should have allowed the impleadment of the petitioner and should have impleaded her as a defendant after recalling the decree dated 7.12.2011. (III) Even otherwise when the Revisional Court was informed about the litigation which was pending before the Board of Revenue where the petitioner was claiming to be a legatee of the deceased Ram Khelawan, it should have allowed the impleadment of the petitioner and should have impleaded her as a defendant after recalling the decree dated 7.12.2011. (IV) The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2713 of 2014 has also submitted that when it was brought to the notice of the Revisional Court that she was claiming through Ajit Yadav and it was imperative that before any decree was passed in the suit of Siya Ram she should have also been heard, then the Revisional Court should have appreciated the fact that it was imperative that the petitioner, Durgawati Devi should also have been impleaded as a party/defendant. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2713 of 2014 is that the application for the recall of the ex parte decree dated 7.12.2011 was still pending in the suit of Siya Ram and therefore, the application should also have been decided. The respondent no.3 is represented by Sri M.K.Dubey and Sri Deepak Singh but they are not present today even in the revised call. Ajit Yadav (the respondent) is also represented by Sri P.C.Singh, Advocate. But Sri P.C. Singh is also not present. The other respondents claimed their right through Ajit Yadav and whatever result would be reached in these proceedings would bind them also. Therefore, it is not essential to hear them. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Heerawati Devi, I am of the definite view that when the petitioner Heerawati Devi had brought to the notice of the Revisional Court that she was contesting tooth and nail for her title in the mutation proceedings before the Board of Revenue and that she had also filed a declaratory suit being Suit No. 43 of 2004, which she had filed on 15.10.2004, then the Revisional Court should have allowed the petitioner Heerawati Devi to contest the matter. Under such circumstances, I allow the writ petitions and remand the matter back to the Trial Court. The orders of Revisional Court dated 16.11.2013 and the ex parte decree dated 7.12.2011 are quashed. Under such circumstances, I allow the writ petitions and remand the matter back to the Trial Court. The orders of Revisional Court dated 16.11.2013 and the ex parte decree dated 7.12.2011 are quashed. I hold that all parties who have a substantial right in a suit which is being adjudicated upon must be impleaded as a party in the suit. The Trial Court, will now, after impleading the petitioner Heera Wati Devi as a defendant proceed with the suit. Since the suit will now be heard afresh, it shall be deemed that the application under Order-IX, Rule-13 as was filed by Durgawati Devi, was also allowed. Durgawati Devi shall also be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by Siya Ram. Since the suits which have been filed by the respondent no.3, Siya Ram and the petitioner Heerawati Devi both are seeking a declaration regarding the same property it shall be in the interest of justice that the Trial Court hears the Suit No. 43 of 2004 and the Suit No. 49/110/2008 together. It is also made clear that both the suits shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Both the writ petitions are allowed.