Pakistan Case Law← Search
1979 SCMR 20

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE AND 3

Citation1979 SCMR 20
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 396 of 1977 Civil Revision No.
Date1978-04-16
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Sheikh Anwarul Haq
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition (C. R. No. 462 of 1977) . And upholding the order of the District Judge, refusing to implead him as a party to the appeal.

2. Before us the petitioner has reiterated the contention raised before the Courts below and has also submitted that as he was in possession of a part of the suit land, he was a necessary party in appeal before the District Judge.

3. On the question of the petitioner's possession of Khasra No. 2276, respondent No. 4 has not denied that he was in possession of some part of it, but whether this circumstance entitled the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in the suit has still to be gone into by the trial Court. The matter in appeal before the District Judge arose out of the decision on the application for temporary injunction, and although it is not clear from the record before us what precise relief was sought by the plaintiff in it, it seems he wanted some kind of stay order against his own dispossession. The grant or refusal of the stay order would not affect the petitioner or interfere with his possession because according to him he already has in his favour a decree qua his dispossession. His application for being impleaded as a party before the trial Court is pending arid as observed by the Courts below is still to be adjudicated upon. If the petitioner succeeds in his said application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., he can contest the suit in the capacity of defendant before the trial Court.

4. We agree with the view taken by the High Court and the District Judge that the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in appeal before the latter in a proceeding arising out of a decision on an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 could not be accepted as the appellate Court was in a position, notwithstanding the petitioner, to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question in appeal.

5. This petition has no force and is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search