1998 PLP 1388 (CLC)

JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.‑‑‑Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the successors‑in‑interest of one Yar Badshah R/o Najoi Tehsil and District, Peshawar whereas respondents Nos.3(i) to 3(ix) are, the successors‑in‑interest of Khalil Khan (respondent No.3) since dead.

2. Yar Badshah, defendant, in the present suit, had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Peshawar against Khalil Khan (respondent No.3, since dead) wherein he had prayed that he be granted a decree for declaration to the effect that he had become the owner of the "suit Maina" through prescription as he had remained in its adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years.

3. The suit in question (No.327/1 of Yar Badshah v. Khalil Khan) was dismissed by the Trial Court on 20‑6‑1990. Aggrieved, by the said order Yar Badshah, filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Peshawar. The appeal also met the same fate and the District Judge by his order, dated 19‑3‑1993 dismissed, the same.

4. Resultantly, an ejectment suit was filed against Yar Badshah by Khalil Khan (respondent No.3) on the grounds that Yar Badshah, being his tenant, had denied his title and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected from the "suit maina".

5. During the pendency of the suit the sons (petitioners Nos. l to 4) of Yar Badshah, applied to the Trial Court and prayed that they being co‑sharers, be impleaded as defendants in the said suit as they were necessary parties. Their petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by its order, dated 24‑5‑1995. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge (I) Peshawar for the redress of their grievance against the order of the Trial Judge. The Additional District Judge dismissed the Revision Petition by his order, dated 9‑9‑1997. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Mre Ruh‑ul‑Amin Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners present and heard. We have also gone through the record appended with this writ petition carefully. .

7. It may be stated at the very out‑set that the judgments recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Additional District Judge, Peshawar do not suffer from any illegality specially in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Azad Jammu and Kashmir) in case titled Rasab Khan and another v. Abdul Ghani and others reported as PLD 1985 Supreme Court (AJ&K)

69. It was held by their Lordships:‑‑‑ "

Since a co‑sharer's interest and possession extends to the entire joint property, he is entitled to eject a trespasser from the whole of it. Co‑sharer is undoubtedly entitled to maintain a suit for ejectment against trespasser without impleading all co? sharers. "

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners was neither able to convince us as to what illegality or material irregularity was committed by the lower forums in following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Azad Jammu and Kashmir) referred to above nor pin point any jurisdictional error in respect of the impugned judgments.,

9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition is without any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./39/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed