' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Through the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-7-1999 the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh reversed the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1997 of the learned Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh and proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner in his suit for possession of the disputed shop pleaded that the same as part of a big property was sold by the owners Abdul Rehman etc. To respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly with him for Rs,20,000. And that as the petitioner was unable to pay his share of the sale price, his name was not included in the document dated 10-3-1989 but on the basis of the joint sale the petitioner claimed his ownership and thus dispossession of respondent No,1 from the suit shop. On contesting written statement by respondent No,1 six issues were framed. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 allegedly joint vendees filed a conceding written statement but were proceeded against ex parte in the trial on their absence. The evidence of the petitioner and respondent No,1, as the contesting parties was recorded. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 being ex parte did not lead any evidence. The learned civil Judge through the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1997 decreed the suit of the petitioner. However, on appeal of respondent No,1, the decree was set aside and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh through judgment and decree dated 21-7-1999. Hence, the present civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that document reflecting sale (Exh.P.1) was made by Rehmatullah, Abdul Hamid, Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rehman, the vendors in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 acknowledging receipt of sale price and delivery of possession there of The petitioner, Faqir Muhammad was a marginal witness of the said document who in his deposition as P.W.3 admitted to have signed the said document as a marginal witness. The petitioner in his plaint set up a case pf ownership on the basis that he was a joint vendee though his name was not included in the sale document (Exh.P.1) as a vendee because of non-payment of the share of the sale price by him. In this suit the petitioner admittedly did not implead any of the vendors as party to the suit. The petitioner also did not produce any of the vendors including Abdul Rehman as a witness to prove transaction in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the vendors were necessary and proper parties to the suit but were neither impleaded in the suit nor in the present civil revision nor did the petitioner/plaintiff seek their impleadment at any stage of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that without impleadment of these necessary and proper parties or without presenting them as witnesses the petitioner could not have claimed ownership of the suit property or otherwise could not have proved to be, a joint vendee along with the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the absence of the vendors/owners from the scope of the suit. It is true that upon non-joinder of the parties no suit can be defeated. However, as a rule of substantial law in absence of necessary and proper parties the suit fails. The reason is that Court will be unable to decide the suit in absence of the necessary parties. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Rani and another v. Mst. Razia Sultana 1994 SCM R 2268 and Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others PLD 1982 SC 46, upheld the above principle of substantive law. Furthermore the bare reading of the plaint filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner did not pay consideration for the sale on execution of the sale document (Exh.P.1) wherefor the sale document (Exh.P.1) was executed in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 3. This admission in itself is adequate to show that the petitioner in absence of consideration and payment of his share of the sale price cannot claim that any enforceable agreement/contract of sale in his favour is in existence. Also that the petitioner in his deposition admitted to have signed as a marginal witness on Exh.P.1 and in presence of the document, endeavour to set up an oral case by the petitioner much after the execution of Exh.P.1 cannot be given any weight. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any misreading, non-reading or excess of authority or irregularity committed by the learned first appellate Court in rendering the impugned judgment and decree. In view thereof this civil revision is dismissed.