1991 PLP 302 (CLC)

O.1, R.3 & S.115

Non-joinder of parties, plea of

Plot in question having been purchased by plaintiff, she had filed suit for declaration of her title and same was decreed upto Appellate Court

Defendant's plea was that plaintiff having purchased plot was obliged to join her predecessor-in-interest from whom she had purchased the plot as a necessary party and in absence of such party no effective decree could be passed in suit

Defendant's plea was rejected on the ground that plaintiff's suit had been rightly dealt with by the Courts below in so far as regards parties actually before it, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff being not necessary parties

Trial Court's decree as affirmed by Appellate Court, could effectively be executed as plaintiff had entered into the shoes of her predecessor in-interest, presence of predecessor-in-interest before Court was not necessary to enable it effectively and competently to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in suit

Question involved in suit referred to question involved between parties to the suit

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was left with no interest in property after he had sold the plot

During pendency of suit or even thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff had made no application for impleading him as party

Revision was dismissed in circumstances. P L D 1987 Lab. 387 ref. Khaqan Babar for Petitioner. On 5-7-1989, Mst. Rubi Nasreen filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against L.D.A. in Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The suit was resisted. Issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 12-1-1989. Feeling aggrieved thereby, L.DA. filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 16-12-1989. Hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and as such, the suit should have been dismissed. He relied on PLD 1987 Lahore

387. He argued that the plot in dispute was originally owned by Mst. Bilqces Bibi and was exempted in lieu of her land acquired for 1600 Acre Scheme, Lahore. She sold it to Munawar Sultana, who further alienated it to Mst. Rubi Nasreen respondent through registered sale-deed on 19-1-1981. Since the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent were necessary party, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was obliged to join them as party and in their absence no effective decree could be passed by the trial Court. Resultantly, the suit of the respondents must fail. No other point was raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. He feel that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, Mst. Bilqees or Munawar Sultana were not the necessary party, as such, the trial Court has rightly dealt with the matter in so far as regards the parties actually before it. The decree passed by the trial Court can effectively be executed as the respondent, subsequent purchaser has entered into the shoes of their predecessors-in-interest, therefore, the presence of the predecessor-in-interest before the Court was/is not necessary to enable it effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. Needless to say that the term "question involved in the suit" refers to question involved between the parties to the suit. After the sale of the plot by them to the respondent, the predecessors-in-interest namely Mst. Bilqees and Mst. Munawar Sultana have no interest in the property. During the pendency of the suit or even thereafter, they had nut shade an application for impleading them as party. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A.A/L-104/L. Revision dismissed.