' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J---The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of contract.
Respondent No,4 instituted the suit for possession through partition of the land, which is also subject-matter of the suit for specific performance of the contract. Both the suits were consolidated. The petitioner filed the application for impleading Karim Bakhsh on the ground that he was co-purchaser with the father of the petitioner, which was resisted by the respondents. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application, vide order, dated, 7-2-2007. Petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, vide order, dated 9-5-2007, hence the present constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel stated that Karim Bakhsh was necessary party, therefore, he ought to have been impleaded in the suit, therefore, both the orders are not sustainable. He has relied upon Mst.
Maqbool Begum v. Gullan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46), Avari Hotels Limited through Chairman and Chief Executive v. Investment Corporation of Pakistan through Managing Director/Principal Officer and 6 others (2002 CLC 1889) and Mst. Kausar -Bibi v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 6 others (1990 CLC 1205).
3. I. Have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. In nutshell the petitioner has challenged the order invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article, 199 of the Constitution of theIslamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, passed by a revisional Court in 'exercise of its powers under section 115, C.P.C. And, thus, the question arises for determination is as to whether the Constitutional petition is competent and maintainable against the revisional order passed in a civil litigation.
4. The said legal question was examined in Muhammad Sarni Ullah Khan v. Additional District Judge and others reported as PLD 2002 Lah. 56 and this Court while relying upon Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1985 SC 131), Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others (1988 SCM R 322) and Muhammad Khan v. Ghulam Fatima (1991 SCM R 970) came to the conclusion that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation could not be challenged in constitutional petition. It was further held that if an order passed by a District Judge, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, is although illegal, yet passed with jurisdiction, then the same cannot be assailed in a constitutional petition and if an order passed by the revisional Court is wholly void or coram non judice, of course, a writ petition against such a revisional order, would be competent.
Except for such Orders, in no other case an order passed by District Judge as a revisional Court in Civil litigation can be challenged through filing the constitutional petition.
5. I have minutely perused the order, dated 9-5-2007 rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge and I am of the considered view that the said order is neither void nor without jurisdiction and the same has been passed by the learned Addl. District Judge having jurisdiction in the matter. The present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. Even otherwise, the petitioner has got no case on merits. Both the Courts after taking into consideration every aspect of the case has concurrently held that. Karim Bakhsh is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit and the petitioner may summon or produce him in their evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner- could not demonstrate from the available record as to how Karim Bakhsh is necessary or even a proper party in the suit. I have no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below, which have rightly decided the matter.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is incompetent, not maintainable and devoid of merit as well, thus stands dismissed on both the counts.