2025 PLP 1928 (YLR)

S M Attique Shah, J.

By way of this single judgment, this court intends to dispose of instant revision petition as well as connected C.R. No.620-P/2018, as not only the parties but the subject matter is also one and; the same therein.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. Record reflects that initially the petitioner filed two suits i.e. suit for possession through partition and; suit for declaration, perpetual-cum-mandatory injunction and restoration of possession in alternate, which were consolidated by the learned Trial Court and; after receiving the written statements, framing consolidated issues, recording pro and contra evidence and; hearing learned counsel for the parities, decreed both these suits through a consolidated judgment and; decree dated 27.02.2017. Being discontented, respondents filed separate appeals, which too, were consolidated by learned Appeal Court and; after hearing learned counsel for the parties, accepted the same and, consequently, dismissed the suits of the petitioner through impugned judgment and; decree dated 10.07.2017.

4. Impugned findings reflect that Suit # 63/1 of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appeal Court on two folded grounds, firstly; that it was barred by limitation being filed beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act and; secondly, the suit was not maintainable before the learned Civil Court as the petitioner had sought correction of revenue record, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts in terms of Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. However, record reflects that the petitioner in the ibid suit has not only sought declaration, permanent-cum-mandatory injunction and; possession while challenging the wrong entries in the revenue record but has also challenged the validity of mutation No.974, attested on 13.05.2002 being illegal and thus having no bearing upon their rights. Therefore, in the given circumstances, instant matter does not hit by the provision of Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Coming to Suit # 64/1 of the petitioner filed for possession through partition of the property, which was dismissed by the learned Appeal Court on the ground that neither the petitioner has sought the partition of the entire property nor impleaded therein the entire proprietary body, as such, the suit was not maintainable.

5. As of now, it is well settled that the suit cannot be dismissed for partial partition as well as for want of impleadment of the entire proprietary body of the village because the entire property as well as the necessary and proper parties to the suit can be included therein in the larger interest of justice instead of knocking out them on technical grounds. Mst. Zohran Bibi and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others [2022 MLD 250]. If the suit of the petitioner was defective, then, the law has provided due mechanism for removal of such defect in terms of Order VI Rule 17 and; Order XXIII C.P.C. It is well settled that (no suit shail be defeated on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of the necessary parties, rather, the Courts are mandated to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the rights and interests of the parties directly involved therein. Chaudhry Muhammad Munir and others v. Election Tribunal, Mandi Gref Bahauddin and others [2009 SCMR 1368] and Mazullah Khan v. Mst. Taraja Begum and others [2020 YLR 2206 Peshawar).

6. In the given facts and; circumstances of the case, this court without touching the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the interest of either party before the learned Trial court has left with no other option but to set aside the impugned consolidated findings of learned fora below and; remit the matter to the learned trial court with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to remove the defects in the suit and; thereafter, proceed with the matter strictiy in accordance with law. Allied CMs stand disposed of accordingly. SA/9/P Order accordingly.