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. Lear