JUDGMENT : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 201 of 2015 dated 28.02.2022, by Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Wardha, which was filed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent No. 1 filed suit against respondents except respondent No. 10 for partition. The suit was decreed. The appeal was preferred by third party the appellant. He is claiming that he is owner of Survey No. 365, village mouza Waigaon (Nipani) District Wardha which is subject matter of suit. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that appellant failed to prove his right in the suit property Survey No. 365. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the name of appellant appearing in the revenue record i.e. 7/12 extract of Survey No. 365 as per mutation entry No. 1480 which was effected in the year 2011. It is not challenged till today by the respondents. Other old revenue record and entries in it are also pointed out. The appellant submitted that all the documents were filed in view of the directions of this Court by order dated 15th March, 2024. The valuable right of appellant is affected. It is lastly prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and remand the suit before the trial Court for a fresh hearing on merit. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly objected and submitted that earlier partition took place between forefathers of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and other family members. As per the impugned judgment and decree the Tahsildar Wardha passed final order for effecting partition as per Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He pointed out some revenue record to show that there was earlier partition. In support of it a Pursis of details of earlier partition is also filed. He further pointed out revenue record which shows that partition was effected earlier. He submitted that some of the properties are sold by this appellant which shows that there was earlier partition. It is lastly submitted to dismiss the appeal. 5. Perused the impugned judgments and decrees of both Courts. He further pointed out revenue record which shows that partition was effected earlier. He submitted that some of the properties are sold by this appellant which shows that there was earlier partition. It is lastly submitted to dismiss the appeal. 5. Perused the impugned judgments and decrees of both Courts. From revenue record it is clear that appellant’s name is recorded to the record of rights of the suit property Survey No. 365. He was not made party to the suit and in his absence, said property cannot be partitioned. It is patent illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts. 6. As far as defence of respondent as to the earlier partition is concerned it is matter of evidence and the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence to establish the existence and non existence of earlier partition by metes and bounds. 7. The impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts are set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed and disposed of. The suit deserves to be decided on merit. Hence, the following directions. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the said suit on merit by giving full opportunity to this appellant and all the parties to plead and for that amend their pleadings. 9. The plaintiff is directed to amend the suit and add this appellant as defendant in it. If he is not added within a month from today trial Court shall dismiss the suit. 10. The earlier partition is in dispute therefore all the properties of late Nama, who was common ancestor of the appellant and respondents must be brought into common hotpotch in the suit. All the descendants of late Nama, who have rights in those properties shall be added as parties to the suit and they be summoned. The suit be amended accordingly. It would be proper to give liberty to the parties to submit their pleadings so that lis shall be decided once finally on merit. The parties are at liberty to submit their pleadings, if any, within one month. It is clarified that respondent-plaintiff may amend the suit accordingly. The appellant has to submit his written statement or counter-claim if any within a month. The parties are at liberty to submit their pleadings, if any, within one month. It is clarified that respondent-plaintiff may amend the suit accordingly. The appellant has to submit his written statement or counter-claim if any within a month. If any joint family property is sold by the appellant or anyone it shall be made suit property in the plaint and shall be considered and to that extent his share can be reduced and adjusted suitably for the partition by metes and bounds. His purchaser shall not be made party to the suit. 11. The respondent No. 10 is acquiring body. It acquired some part of some of the suit properties or other properties which are subject matter of suit and those are to be brought into common hotpotch for the just decision of the suit on merit and to decide adjustment of it if necessary for effective and just partition. For that purpose the respondent No. 10 is not necessary party to the suit. The name of respondent No. 10 is to be deleted from array of the plaint. The plaintiff is directed to amend the suit and delete respondent No. 10 forthwith or in any case within a month. The trial Court is requested to get it complied from plaintiff. If it is not amended trial Court may pass necessary order accordingly like costs etc. as is provided in law against plaintiff. 12. It is clarified that all the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 19.7.2024 and co-operate trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. No fresh issue of summons is necessary for it. 13. Considering the fact that suit was filed in the year 2009 the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a year from today by keeping matter twice in a week and dispose of it speedily. 14. The trial Court is directed to cast the issues afresh and by giving full opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence on merit. If parties are not adducing any public document, the trial Court may proceed as per Section 30(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and take it on record to decide the suit on merit in the interest of justice. 15. The record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the trial Court. 16. No costs. 17. The appeal is disposed of. 18. 15. The record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the trial Court. 16. No costs. 17. The appeal is disposed of. 18. The registry to inform the trial Court accordingly.