1983 PLP 1444 (CLC)

Amirzada v. Sardur Begum 1970 S C M R 361 and Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner P L D 1973 S C 24 rel., Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner, Ch. Mujammal Khan for Respondents Nos. 13 and

14. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th March, 1983. The facts are that the sale of the land in dispute, made by Bashi Ahmad predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 12, in favour of respondents Nos. 13 and 14 was challenged by the petitioner, as being violative of customary law and ineffective on his reversionary rights. The learned trial Court dismissed his suit for declaration and possession but the first appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge. The vendees then brought R. S. A. No. 265/1979, which is still sub judice. ,

2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 12, moved an application to be impleaded as a party in the R. S. A. but it was dismissed on 9th June, 1981. There after they instituted an independent suit for possession, challenging the validity of the sale aforesaid. This suit is also based on custom. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party and he filed an application under order I, rule 10, C. P. C. The learned trial Court has taken the view that as in the matter of inheritance, the respondents /plaintiffs are nearer in decree qua Bashir Ahmad deceased, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party and disallowed the application. The learned District Judge did not differ with this view. Thus the petitioner's revision also failed. It is under these circumstances that he has invoked the writ juris diction of this Court. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. It is not disputed that the petitioner holds a decree for possession in his favour and has alleged that the suit filed by re3pon dents Nos. 3 to 12, against the vendees is collusive and a fraud on him. In view of this allegation and also to avoid the possibility of a contradictory decision, on a matter adjudicated upon in the petitioner's suit, he should have been impleaded as a party in the subsequent suit. I feel that up to the facts of the case, the petitioner is a necessary party and the contention to the contrary raised by the respondent's learned counsel has no merit. He however, raised another plea that the order of the learned District Judge being with jurisdiction, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, of C the High Court and cited Khyber Spinning Co., Lahore v. Chairman, Pb.I L. A. Tribunal, Lahore (P L D‑ 1978 Lah. 909) and Mst. Sayeda Aziz Khatoon v. Additional District Judge and Settlement Commissioner (1980 C L C 363) to augment his submission. 4. 1n the precedents relied upon by the learned. counsel it has been maintained that a tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter, can decide it rightly as well as wrongly and a mere wrong decision would riot furnish a basis to exercise writ jurisdiction.

5. There is ,no quarrel with this proposition but as held in Amirzada v. Sardar Begum (1970 S C M R 361) and Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner (P L D 1973 S C 24) writ of certiorari lies when the decision of tribunal is considered by the Court to be bad on the face of the record, I feel, a that the view taken by ‑the learned Courts below amounts to an error oil law apparent on the face of record, and thus is liable to be corrected through judicial review. The impugned order, therefore, has got to be set aside.

6. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority. As there will be no use of remanding the case to the learned District Judge it is directed that the petitioner shall be brought on the record as a defendant. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition accepted.