1. SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. -- This petition and C.R. No. 2367/2005 arise out of the same judgment of the Appellate Court dated 3.6.2005. Mst. Rajan since deceased now represented by her legal heirs had instituted a suit, for pre-emption against Subah Sadiq, the petitioner herein and Rakhsana Shaheen minor respondent in C.R. No. 2367/2005. After trial, suit to the extent of the share of the petition in the land was .Decreed but was dismissed qua Rukhsana Shaheen, This was vide judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.12.2004. Subah Sadiq the petitioner herein as also the heirs of Mst. Rajan filed appeals against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which as mentioned above was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The two revision petitions arise in this context.
2. In the petition (C.R. No. 1841/2005) filed by Subah Sadiq, Rukhsana Shaheen has not been impleaded as party whereas in the revision petition (C.R. No. 2367/2005) filed by legal representatives of Mst. Rajan, Subah Sadiq has not been impleaded as party. This itself being a fatal defect would have entailed dismissal of both the revision petitions. Moreover, another defect noticeable is that before the lower Appeilate Court even similar position prevailed. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petition could not advance any convincing explanation for not impleading necessary parties either in appeal or in revision petitions here. Thus even appeals before the lower Appellate Court .Were not competent in absence of the necessary parties, ln Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13, others (PLD 1987 Lahore 387) such a defect was considered to be fatal for the maintenance of appeal/revision.
3. In view of the above, both these revision petitions suffer from such an inherent defect as is not curable now. The petitions are dismissed accordingly.