P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

Yaqub Hussain Zaidi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th February 1966. INAMULLAH KHAN, C. J.-These are two Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 292 of 1965 and 296 of 1965) against the order of A. R. Sheikh, J., dated the 22nd of October 1965, whereby he disposed of two writ petitions giving rise to the present two appeals. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the necessary party was not before the Court so as to enable it to issue an effective writ. The writ petitions were filed in February 1962. Written statement on behalf of Hakim Ghulam Rasool respon dent was filed after about a month on 29th of March 1962, in. Writ Petition No. 270-R of 1962. The respondent Hakim Ghulam Rasool clearly stated that he had nothing to do with the property in dispute as he bad transferred it to Mst. Abida Begum, Mst. Zubaida Sultana, Mst. Farhat Sultana, Mst. Musrrat Sultana and Mst. Nargis Sultana. The respondent also gave their addresses in his written statement. He also prayed in the written statement that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of want of necessary parties. In spite of this the appellant did not implead the parties who were necessary in order to finally adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge on 22nd of October 1965, after about 3 and a half years a preliminary objection was taken by the counsel for Hakim Ghulam Rasool that no effective writ could be issued as the persons interested now in the property were not before the Court. The learned Single Judge accepted the conten tion of the learned Advocate for the respondent and dismissed the petition.

2. Mr. Zaidi, learned Advocate for the appellant, contended before us that it is within the power of this Court to order that the necessary parties should be brought on the record of this Court. He also submitted that it would be in the interest of justice if it is done so. We have heard the learned Advocate. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was impressed by the fact that the respondent Ghulam Rasool had intimated the appellant as long ago as three and a half years that he was not interested in the property and that his interest had passed on to someone else. A valuable right has come to vest in the persons to whom Ghulam Rasool had transferred the property. It is now too late to drag these persons to this Court.

3. The learned Advocate, in support of his contention; relied on Muhammad Naziruddin v. Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad (P L D 1964 Kar. 450). In our view the facts of that case were quite different. In this connection we will reproduce paragraph 9 from the judgment. It reads as under:-- "In the present case, as discussed above, the facts are not as bad as in the Lahore case. The parties likely to be affected have already been imp leaded as parties, the writ petition and were before the Court. It could not, therefore, be held that the Court was not in a position to issue an effective writ." In the present case this Court cannot issue any effective writ in favour of the appellant unless the parties, to whom the property had been transferred are imp leaded in the writ petitions. They are not before us. The Court has not to see the equities only in favour of one party but also in favour of the other party. It may be that the appellant ma-v suffer because o: the dismissal of the petition on this ground but on the other, hand the persons, to whom the property had been transferred, would be dragged toy this Court after a number of years for no fault of theirs. The appeals are dismissed in limine. K. B. A. Appeals dismissed.