1995 PLP 1553 (CLC)

Ram Sarup v. The Araya Samaj, Dhamur and others AIR 1925 Al1.337 and Khaji Muhammad Hussain Sahib v. Majiday Mahmood Jamait Managing . Committee AIR 1940 Mad. 167 rel. C.M. Latif Rawn for Petitioner. Mahfooz ul Haq for Respondent. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that the petitioner filed an application for grant of succession certificate in respect of the rent deposited by Alma Agricultural. Marketing Trading Centre for a portion of Property No.9, Multan Road, Lahore. He also impleaded public‑at‑, large as respondent‑No.1 and the Treasury Officer as respondent No.2. The respondent Jamiat Ahle Hadis moved an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.for impleading it as a respondent. The first application was dismissed by the trial Court on 19‑12‑1991. This order was assailed through a revision, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 15‑5‑1993 and the applicant was directed to move a fresh application. The amended petition was accordingly filed by the Jamiat Ahle Hadis and the same was accepted by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 28‑11‑1993. Hence this petition in which pre‑admission notice was issued to the respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the applicant respondent is nor a registered body, therefore it can neither sue nor can be sued in view of the provisions of section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned counsel in this behalf placed reliance on the cases reported as Ram Sarup v. The Araya Sanaj, Dhampur and others (AIR 1925 Allahabad 337) and Khaji Muhammad Hussain Sahib v. Majiday Mahmood Jamait Managing Committee (AIR 1940 Madras 167).

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner was registered as back as 1933 and under the present name and style it was registered on 28‑2‑1978 after its bye laws were framed. It is maintained that copy of the same was placed on record of the trial Court and has also been placed on the file of this revision petition. It is argued that in this view of the factual position there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection is factually incorrect.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments on both sides, 1 gone through the record and provisions of law as well as precedent cases. The respondent is duly registered body. It can sue and can be sued. This is not all. The petitioner, as already noted, impleaded the public‑at‑large, the Treasury Officer and tenant in the premises as respondents in the petition for grant of Succession Certificate but they have not been cited as respondents in this revision petition, therefore, it is rendered incompetent in the absence of the I parties. The matter can be looked from another angle. The petitioner has already impleaded the public‑at‑large, therefore, anybody, who could assist the trial Court in the matter of grant pr refusal of the Succession Certificate could come forward even without making an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. The trial Court can summarily hear him to ascertain whether his presence is necessary in the matter or not.

5. The petitioner was aware of relatives of the deceased Mst. Rashida Zbhra, who were interested in her property as is clear from the file of FA.O. No. 155 of 1991 filed by the said relations against the petitioner whereby they assailed the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, accepting the application of the petitioner under section 11 of the Auqaf Ordinance, 1979 but he did not implead them as required under section 372 (c) of Succession Act, 1925.

6. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is directed to implead the appellant and respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in FA.O. No. 155 of 1991 as respondents in the application for grant of Succession Certificate in addition to the respondents already impleaded. A.A./J‑95/L Revision dismissed.