2025 PLP 620 (YLR)

Muhammad Faheem Wali, J.

Through the instant application filed under Section 12 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, petitioner (Abdullah Khan) has prayed as under: - "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of instant petition the impugned judgment in case file No. 329/1, passed by learned Civil Judge-I Haripur dated 20.03.1988, impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 52/13, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II Haripur dated 13.04.1988 and impugned judgments and orders passed in Revision Petitions Nos. 78/91, 79/91 and 80/91 passed by Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar be declared null and void, against the law, facts and statute due to non-pleading of the petitioner as necessary party in the above 05 cases with cost throughout. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may graciously be granted to the petitioner."

2. As per contents of the application, the proforma respondents / plaintiffs had instituted a declaratory suit against the real respondents / defendants in respect of the land, detailed in the application, with averments that the land in question (uncultivatable and not partitioned) had been the ownership of proforma respondents / plaintiffs, however, the suit after full dressed trial was dismissed by learned trial court, whereafter the pro forma respondents / plaintiffs had statedly preferred an appeal, which was allowed and thereafter the real respondents / defendants had filed Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 78/91, 79/91 and 80/91 before this court, which were dismissed. The petitioner alleged that as he was owner of the suit land to the extent of his due share, therefore, the parties to the suit were required to array him as necessary party, however, due to deliberate intention his name had been suppressed from the courts of law, hence, he, being necessary party to the lis has filed the instant application.

3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.

4. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was that as per revenue record the petitioner is owner of the suit land to the extent of his share, therefore, non-arraying him as party to the suit and deliberately suppressing his name from the courts of law necessitates filing of the instant application under Section 12 (2) C.P.C.

5. Perusal of record transpires that admittedly the petitioner has been shown as owner of the suit land to the extent of his due share but simultaneously a glance over the heading of the plaint clearly divulges that the pro forma respondents / plaintiffs while filing the suit had specifically arrayed his predecessor namely, Gohar Sultan Khan, father of the real respondents / defendants and Muhammad Rafiq Khan, the maternal grandfather of the petitioner at Serial No. 39 and after the latter's demise vide court order dated 29.09.1984 mother of petitioner namely, Mst. Firdous Begum had been arrayed as defendants at serial No. 68, meaning thereby that when the predecessors of the petitioner were alive not only they but even after his grandfather's demise, mother of the petitioner had been arrayed as defendant at serial No.68, thus, from the above discussion it has been clarified that the pro forma respondents / plaintiffs had neither; suppressed nor kept secret deliberately the name of petitioner from the proceedings conducted before the competent courts of jurisdiction.

6. In light of what has been discussed hereinabove, this application, being without any force, is hereby dismissed. MQ/190/P Application dismissed.