1989 PLP 3594 (MLD)

Abdul Majeed Khan. for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. . The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the orders passed by the II Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, South, who has allowed the application of the intervenors respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and further allowed the application for amendment in pleadings. The facts of the case are that the present petitioner had brought ejectment case against the respondent No. 1 with regard to the portion of the plot in the case and the said intervenors moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 C.P.C:, to be joined as party claiming interest in said plot. We have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the Rent Controller could not have allowed the said intervenors to be joined as they were claiming to be co-owners of the property in dispute. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the order impugned by him is the order of interlocutory nature and that this order too could be challenged in the rent appeal after the Rent Controller has passed the final order in the ejectment case and that at this stage in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, we would rather not interfere with the said order which would involve appreciation of documents or determination of title or shares of the parties. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan in order to support his aforesaid contention, has placed reliance on the following cases, namely, (1) Nawabuddin v. Qamar Oil Mills (1989 SCMR 205), (2) Khalique Ahmed v. Abdul Ghani and another (PLD 1973 SC 214), (3) Mst. Safia Bai v. Abdul Sattar (PLD 1983 Kar. 419), and (4) Raza Hussain v. District Judge, Vehari and others 1986 SCMR 1267). In the above-said two cases, the first rent appeals were filed before the High Court against the final orders passed by the Rent Controllers concerned and thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil petitions for leave to appeal, while in the third case of Karachi Bench, the points concerned were agitated in a first rent appeal filed against the final decision of the Rent Controller. This is not the case here, as in present case no final order has yet been passed by the Rent Controller but the orders are, as already stated, only of interlocutory nature. The facts of the above-cited fourth case of Raza Hussain v. District Judge, Vehari, are somewhat similar as to the present case, but in that case the application of intervenor was dismissed and he filed an appeal before the District Judge which was also dismissed as not maintainable. The intervenor in the said `case, therefore, had been shut-out from participating in the proceedings and he, therefore, having no other remedy available approached the High Court in Constitution petition which was also dismissed and thereafter he went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a civil petition against said judgment of the High Court. Whereas in the present case, no one has been shutout from participating in the proceedings but the intervenor has been allowed to be joined. In view of the above distinction we, with respect, are of the view that the above case will also not be applicable to the present case. As stated above, we are of the view that the points taken by the petitioner in this petition can also be agitated by him in the rent appeal in case final decision of the Rent Controller is against him. In view of above discussion, we find no substance in the present petition which is dismissed in limine. Above are the reasons for the short order announced by us today. M.Y.H./M-785/K Petition dismissed.