1. The revision petition has been tiled against the order dated 14.9.2004 passed by Sub-Judge-IV, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No. 248 of 2002 whereby the petition tiled by the defendants-petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for addition of. party, has been rejected.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite party filed the abovementioned suit for partition against the defendants. The defendant nos. 3 and 4, the petitioners, appeared in the suit and filed written statement wherein statement was made that some of the joint family property has been left out. They also gave separate schedule of the joint family property in their written statement/counter claim and stated that the property purchased in the name of wife of the plaintiff is a joint family property and it was purchased by joint family fund. The relief was also sought for partition of the property mentioned therein. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for adding Prema Devi, wife of the plaintiff as defendant in the suit as joint family property, is in the name of Prema Devi. The said application has been rejected by the order impugned.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on the record, this much is obvious that the partition suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party in which these petitioners are defendants. The property was joint and as such suit was filed for partition. In the written statement the petitioners have categorically stated that the plaintiff knowingly and cunningly left out the property which was purchased by the joint family fund in the name of his wife and the said property is joint family property. A counter claim was also made seeking partition of the properties. Subsequently, a petition was filed for adding wife of the plaintiff as defendant in the suit which has been rejected by the order impugned. It is an admitted position that the property in the name of wife of the plaintiff has been left out. The petitioners are claiming that it was purchased by the joint family fund whereas according to the opposite party it was her self-acquired property. Since it is claim of the petitioners that the property has been purchased by the joint family fund, she is necessary party to the suit. It is another I thing that the suit will be decided on merit for which this court is presently not concerned. In such a situation, the claim of the petitioners that the wife of the plaintiff is necessary party is justified.

4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside.