MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, On 11.5.2006 the petitioner filed a suit against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was stated in the plaint that respondent No. 1 is the owner of suit land mentioned in the plaint. She is his sister while respondent No. 2 is the husband of respondent No. 1.. Through an oral agreement,.
His sister agreed to sell the land to him on 3.5.200.4 for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- and received Rs. 2,00,000/- by 'way of earnest. She promised to transfer the land (total measuring 13 kanals 10 marlas) to him upon receipt of the balance amount by executing a sale-deed and getting it registered.. However, she has proceeded to transfer 12 kanals 8 marlas out of the said land to her husband i.e. Respondent No. 2 who has proceeded to mortgage the land with the Agricultural Development Bank to obtain' a loan. She has refused to. Perform her part of the contract. He accordingly prayed for a decree for specific performance. It appears. That the said respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have since been proceeded ex-parte in the suit.
2. On 10.7.2006 Abdul Salam the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 12 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. According to him, the entire suit land has been purchased by him from the said defendants in the case, Mutations Nos. 2506 and 2507 have been entered on 8.5.2006. The statements of the vendors have since been recorded. The possession has also been delivered. He alleged that the suit is collusive inter se the plaintiff, his sister and brother-in-law. While this application was pending Abdul Salam died on 18.10.2006. His LRs were impleaded. The application was resisted by the petitioner.
The learned Trial Court allowed the same vide order dated 26.4.2007. A revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Narowal, on 15.8.2007.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the mutations have not been attested so far, it will be deemed that the title has not passed to the said Abdul Salam or his LRs. Further contends with reference to the case of Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Sports Government of the Punjab and another v. Messrs Qavi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Through Director and 2 others (2007 M LD 89) that in a suit based on contract, a person who is not a party to the contract is neither a necessary nor a proper party .
4. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already narrated above the contents of the plaint as also of the application filed by the said Abdul Salam deceased. It has been categorically stated that the defendants in the case have sold the land to him, they have got their statements recorded and the mutations have been entered. So far as the said first .Contention of the learned counsel is concerned, nothing turns on the same as a mutation by itself is neither a document of title nor its evidence. Even if the mutation is attested, the said additional parties will have to prove the transaction of sale, if questioned.
5. So far as the said second contention is concerned, I have examined the said case of Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Sports Government of the Punjab and another. It was a suit for damages on account of breach of contract. One of the defendants in the suit applied for deletion of its name on the ground that it was not a party to the contract and as such there was no question of any breach thereof by it. It was in this background that the said judgment 'was rendered. In the, present case, the sale pleaded is of a date prior to the institution of the suit and the matter will be governed by Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. In view of the said facts pleaded on record by the plaintiff and the additional parties in their application, by all means, they are necessary parties to the suit: The writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine. .