2006L285 (PLP)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

Shaukat Yar Muhammad, the petitioner herein, had made an application 'before the Appellate Court to be impleaded as party in the pending appeal which application has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 18-10-2004, which has been assailed through this revision petition. Despite notice and intimation about the pendency of this petition, the respondents have not entered appearance, the petition thus, has been heard ex parte.

2. Stating the background of the litigation, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner was necessary party and should have been allowed to be impleaded as such, whose application has wrongly and illegally been rejected.

3. The perusal of the application made under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. for impleading him as party shows that some land was allotted to Muhammad Khalil the grandfather of the petitioner and on his death being grandson of Muhammad Khalil (whose father had died), he succeeded him and his grandmother Mst. Sultana Begum who had also died. It is alleged in the said application that Mst. Bushra Ahmad, had at a stage claimed ownership of part of the land as vendee from Muhammad Khalil deceased, the applicant is alleged to have filed a declaratory suit against her which was decreed on 22-4-1991, which had become final. In order to be impleaded as party it was alleged that he had now acquired knowledge of the pendency of the litigation subject-matter of the appeal and thus, applied for being impleaded as party. The order impugned passed by the learned appellate Court, shows that no reply was filed to the application. However, the application was dismissed for the view taken by the learned appellate Court that he was neither necessary nor proper party and that the application filed in the year 2004, was without substance. As mentioned above, the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as party contained some averments, which were factual in nature, the proper course for the appellate Court would have been to receive reply from the parties who intended to oppose the application of the petitioner to be impleaded as party. Mere delay in making the application was not enough to dismiss his application. In terms of rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C., such a power can be exercised by the Court at any time if the presence of a party is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and. settled the questions involved in the suit.. Suffice it to observe that there were conflicting claims of the parties qua the suit property. In this view of the matter, the application tiled by the petitioner has not been disposed of in accordance with law, which need to be heard and decided by the appellate Court after receiving reply thereto from those who were opposed to his being impleaded as party. Thus, by setting aside order, dated 18-10-2004, this revision petition is accepted with the direction that the application filed by the petitioner will be deemed pending before the appellate Court which shall be decided in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. H. B.T./S-429/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.