IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--W.Ps. Nos. 203 and 204 of 2005 carry identical questions of law and facts. The same are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Shortly narrated the facts in W.P. No,203 of 2005 are, that petitioner instituted a suit against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for declaration cum possession and in alternate for possession through preemption in respect of suit land, sold through Mutation No,805 attested on 15-8-2000 in favour of respondent No,
1. Respondent No,3 also filed suit against the sale transaction. Suit of petitioner as well as the rival pre-emptor were consolidated and necessary issues were framed. Pro and contra evidence was recorded. At this stage, Tahir Muhammad respondent No,4 moved an application for his implement to the suit as defendant. The application having been contested was dismissed by judgment and order dated 13-12-2004 of Civil Judge Mardan. Tahir Muhammad filed revision petition which was accepted by District Judge Mardan through judgment and order dated 13-1- 2005.
3. The facts outlined in W.P. No,204 of 2005 precisely narrated are, that petitioner filed suit for declaration, permanent injunction, as well as possession qua suit land against respondent Nos. 1 to
51. Zahir Muhammad respondent contested the suit. Relevant issues 'were formulated and parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. At this juncture, Tahir Muhammad respondent No,52 made an application for his implement to the suit. The application was resisted and ultimately dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Mardan vide judgment and order dated 13-12- 2004. A revision petition was filed there against which was accepted by learned District Judge Mardan by means of his judgment and order dated 13-1-2005 and Tahir Muhammad was impleaded as necessary party to the suit.
4. Miss Nusrat Yasmin Advocate, for the petitioners forcefully contended that judgment and order of learned revisional Court is illegal, against material available on record and in total disregard of relevant provisions of law. She added that the disputed mutation demonstrates that the same has been entered and attested in the name of Zahir Muhammad respondent No,1, therefore, the plea of defendant that he had purchased the suit land is incorrect and stands belied by the material on record. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel asserted that in view of the ample documentary evidence and legal and factual position, respondent No,4 is neither necessary nor even proper party to the suit and the revisional Court had no legal justification to accept application of Tahir Muhammad and direct his implement as a necessary party to the suit. The submissions of the learned counsel carry no weight.
5. It may be added here that provisions of Order I, rule 10, C.P.C vests ample powers in a Court to see to it that proper parties are brought before it. Rule 10(2), C.P.C. Lays down that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, that the name of any party who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate on and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. For purposes of this rule, the parties can either be classified as a necessary party or a proper party. A person who ought to have been joined, is a necessary party, and a person whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle or points involved in the suit, is a proper party. Persons who ought to have been joined as parties and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed or necessary parties. Persons whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, are proper parties. Parties can be added or struck out by the Court where the matter is pending at any stage during pendency, up to the time the decree is drawn up. In the instant case we find that the discretion has been properly exercised by the Appellate Court and the order of trial Court has been reversed for valid reasons and Tahir Muhammad has been impleaded a necessary party on the basis of the material on record. Pursuant to above, we feel that the impugned judgment and order is unexceptionable and hardly calls for interference of this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petitions having been found without substance, are hereby dismissed in limine.