P L D 1959 W (PLP)

This was a suit by a Lambardar against 28 persons for the, recovery of certain amounts from them which he alleged to have paid on their behalf during the harvests Kharif 1946, Kharif 1947,1,4 Rabi 1948 and Kharif 1948. The amounts claimed were described individually and there was no prayer that the 28 defendants had any joint liability in respect of any part of the amounts claimed.) The total amount claimed was Rs. 2,551‑8‑

6. The Assistant Collector decided the suit on 20‑5‑1952 and granted a decree of Rs. 2,036‑8‑7 in four portions payable indivi dually by four sets of persons totalling six in number. No decree was passed against the remaining 22 defendants. An appeal was lodged before the Collector by the judgment -debtors and cross‑objections were put in by the decree‑holder. The decision was that the appeal and the cross‑objections were both dismissed. The decree‑holder was, however, granted a further relief to the effect that he was to get costs throughout. The six judgment‑debtors went up to the Commissioner in revision, who declined on 11‑7‑56, to interfere. A second petition for revision has come up to me for consideration. I find it necessary to interfere in revision on the following grounds:‑ (1) When the suit was in respect of the individual claims against 28 defendants, it could not be maintained as a civil suit. This misjoinder of numerous defendants is fatal to the judicial proceeding which was started by the present respon dent. (2) The fact that the amounts were due in respect of a piece of land for each of the four harvests in question, cannot save the suit from the effects of misjoinder. This piece of land belonged to a third party. The first six defendants took possession of the property on the basis of a promise to sell. The sale in their favour, however, did not take place. Instead, the property was purchased by the present plaintiff‑respondent and a litigation started between the two sets of purchasers, and this litigation was finally decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff should have, therefore, sought mesne profits for the four harvests instead of merely seeking recoup ment of the amounts paid as land revenue etc. The Assistant Collector and the Collector did not deal with the case as if the prayer was for mesne profits and not as a request for recoup ment of land revenue etc. (3) The suit of a Lambardar for recoupment of the land revenue demand entails consideration of two points only: Firstly, whether the name of the defendant is included in the Dhal‑Bachh as a person from whom the amount is due, and Secondly, whether the defendant claims or can prove that he has already paid the amount to the Lambardar. These two points have received no consideration at all at the hands of the subordinate Revenue Courts. I required the parties before me at the last hearing to come prepared in order to explain to me today whether the Dhal‑Bachhes on the record can show what amount was due from each of the present petitioners during the four harvests in dispute. Information on this point is not available today with the counsel of either party. (4) If the Dhal‑Bachh does not show the name of the perso from whom a particular amount was to be charged, the Lambardar could put in a suit against a particular person and prove that the liability for making that payment was that of the said person. Such a suit could be suitably lodged against each individual separately. For all the above reasons, I consider that the suit of the plaintiff‑respondent should have been dismissed in toto. I accord ingly accept this petition for revision and direct that the decree which is on record at present should be replaced by a decree to the effect that the suit of the plaintiff Abdullah Shah should stand dismissed with costs throughout. K. M. A. Revision accepted.