2020 PLP 2037 (MLD)

ALL BAIG, J.

This civil miscellaneous petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C has been preferred by the present petitioners namely Rash Khan, Abdullah Jan, Shah Khan sons of Goro and Air Khan son of Khushal Khan residents of Chilas for impleading themselves as defendants in the suit.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that present respondents/plaintiffs legal heirs of one Behram Khan had filed a suit for declaration and possession of suit land fully described in the head note of plaint situated at old Airport Chilas City against the defendants present respondents category-II in the trial court which was decreed in favor of the present respondents category-I/plaintiffs by the Trial Court. The aforesaid judgment/decree of the learned Trial Court was challenged in the court of learned District Judge Diamer. The learned District Judge after hearing parties allowed the appeal of the defendants and has set aside decree/judgment of learned Trial Court vide the decree/judgment dated 29-10-2014.

3. The present respondents category-I/plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned District Judge Diamer through civil revision petition in this Court.

4. During pendency of said revision petition the present petitioners/interveners have filed the instant petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C for impleading themselves as defendants in the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land of the present petitioners/proposed defendants has been included in the suit land by the plaintiffs /respondents as such the petitioners/interveners are necessary party to the suit but the plaintiffs with mala fide intention have not impleaded the petitioners/interveners as defendants in the suit, therefore by allowing this petition the petitioners/interveners may be impleaded as defendants in the suit.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that no any land of the petitioners has been included in the suit land as the petitioners have failed to annex any documentary proof with the petition, thus the petitioners/interveners are neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioners/interveners have filed the instant petition with mala fide intention at this belated stage to prolong the proceedings which may be dismissed in the interest of justice.

7. I patiently heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the land of the present petitioners/interveners has been included in the suit land while filing suit in the Trial Court and the respondents category-I/plaintiffs have not impleaded the present petitioners as defendants in the suit with mala fide intention to usurp the land of the petitioners.

9. From perusal of record it reveals that the petitioners have not annexed any valid document with the petition regarding their ownership in the suit land. The suit was filed in the Trial Court on 16-7-2013, but the present petitioners/ interveners have remained mum for about 6 years and have filed the instant petition in this court at this belated stage. Under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C an intervener can be impleaded as a party only when either it is a necessary party or it is a proper party. Necessary party is one who ought to have been joined and in whose absence no effective adjudication can take place or decree passed. A party whose presence is necessary before the court in order to completely and effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In the instant case the petitioners/interveners are neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit. An effective decree in their absence can be effectively and completely passed. However, the petitioners/interveners if aggrieved can file a fresh separate suit in the learned Trial Court against the respondents category-I/plaintiffs.

10. In view of what has been discussed/observed herein above, this petition having no substance, is hereby dismissed. However the parties shall bear their own costs. File. SA/140/GB Petition dismissed.