P L D 1959 W (PLP)

O. I, r. 9‑Landlord's appeal not to be dismissed for non joinder of other landlords in a proceeding instituted by an occupancy tenant for extinction of tenancy under S. 114, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887). Malik Muhammad Sharif for Petitioners. Mazhar‑ul‑Haq for Respondent. This is a second revision petition against an order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated 30‑5‑57, confirming the order of the Collector, Sialkot, dated 13‑2‑57, and that of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Sialkot, dated 17‑4‑56, whereby an application of the respondent was allowed under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, as amended by Act VII Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952. I have heard Malik Muhammad Sharif, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr Mazhar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate for the respon dent, Mst. Mehtab Bibi etc., who are recorded as occupancy tenants under section 6 of the Tenancy Act, 1887 applied under section 114 of the Tenancy Act, for the extinction of their occupancy tenancy from certain Shamilat land in village Tulwara, Tahsil and District Sialkot. The landlords contested the appli cation on the ground that they were in possession of the land in question since long and the occupancy tenants had no rights to apply for the extinction of the occupancy rights: Mst. Mehtab Bibi etc's. application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade by his order dated 7‑4‑

56. The landlords (the present petitioners) preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sialkot, who dismissed it on 13‑2‑57 on the ground that the petitioners had failed to implead the rest of the respondent in the original case as a party to this appeal. A revision petition against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 30‑5‑

57. According to Order I, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code no suit shall be defeated for reasons of non‑joinder of parties. This position was confirmed in A I R 1948 Nag. 86, where it was held that failure to join any parties will not entail the dismissal of the suit. According to Order 1, Rule 8, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit one or more of such persons may with the permission of the Court sue or be sued or may defend in such suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. According to 1949 All. 761 such permission can be inferred from the nature of the pro ceedings. I think the Collector has erred in relying on A I R 1938 Lah. 325 in which it was held that no memorandum of appeal whether in Letters Patent or in any other appeal is com plete unless it mentions the names of all the parties against whom relief is sought. In this case the petitioner did not seek any relief against the remaining respondents, who are landlords. As both the Collector and the Commissioner appear to me to have erred in interpreting the law, I accept the petition and remand the appeal to the Collector Sialkot for fresh decision, on the merits of the case after hearing the parties. A. H. Case remanded.