1. ' M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.--- The supra titled revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 6-9-2008 passed. By Additional District Judge, Hattian Bala, whereby an application moved by the respondent No,1 herein for impleading Azad Government and UNDP as party in the line of respondents in the first appeal was allowed.
2. ' Precise facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that predecessor of petitioner/respondent in first appellate Court, filed a suit for adverse possession before the trial Court pertaining to a piece of land bearing Survey Number 42 present 288, 290 measuring 3 Kanals situated in Narul Muzaffarabad, on 30-9-1.993. The respondent/appellant Muhammad Yousaf Khan, also filed a suit for possession regarding the abovementioned land before Civil Judge, Muzaffarabad on 15-1-2005. Both the abovementioned suits after hearing, were dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-1-2005. Against the abovementioned judgment and decree, respondent Muhammad Yousaf Khan, filed an appeal before District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 27-4-2005, which was made over to Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad, for disposal on the same date i.e. 27-4-2005. However, after establishment of the Court of Additional District Judge, Hattian Balla the same was transmitted to the latter Court on 22-2-2007. During pendency of the above appeal respondent/appellant filed an application on 23-2-2008 for impleading UNDP and Revenue Authorities as party on the ground that the petitioner/respondent who possessed the suit-land had given the same on rent to the abovementioned authorities, hence they may be impleaded as such. The petitioner/respondent filed objections on the above application before the Court below on 16-3-2008. After hearing, the learned Additional District Judge, Hattian Bala accepted the application moved by the respondent/appellant consequently Azad Government and UNDP were directed to be impleaded in the line of respondents vide impugned order dated 6-9-2008. Against the abovementioned impugned order the instant revision petition has been filed before this Court on 31-10-2008.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate, strenuously argued that impugned order is contrary to statutory law, as there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading party, in the first appeal. The learned counsel also submitted that party can be impleaded only before the trial Court and appellate Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to implead any person either in line of appellant or as respondent.
4. ' The respondent No,1 appeared in person and stated that petitioner possessed suit-land and instant revision petition has been filed only to prolong his unlawful possession. He further stated that he has been harassed in the litigation despite bona fide purchaser.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order and record of the courts below with utmost care. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that appellate Court cannot implead any party is not acceptable. According to my considered view the appellate Court while exercising powers postulated in section 107 read with Order I, rule 10 of C.P.C. Can implead any party. Section 107 of Civil Procedure Code is reproduced as under:--
107. Powers of appellate Court.-- (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court shall have power--
(a) to determine a case finally;
(b) to remand a case;
(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial;
(d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of Original Jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.
6. ' Similarly Order I, rule 10(2) of C.P.C. Which is relevant for the purpose of resolving controversy in question is also reproduced mutatis mutandis as below:--
(2) Court may strike out or add parties.--- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person 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 effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
7. ' Even otherwise, while exercising powers under Order XLI, rule 20 of C.P.C. The appellate Court may add any party. The instant point came under consideration before the Lahore High Court in a case titled Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and another v. Administrator Thal Bhakkar (1993 CLC 1013) relevant para at page 1019 is reproduced as under:--- "From the above discussion, the ratio deducible is:
(i) That Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code is neither comprehensive nor exclusive. This does not denude appellate Court from its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code -to implead a party who is not a party to the original suit if it is shown that he is a necessary party and no decision can be rendered without such party.
(ii) That the provisions of Rule 20. Of Order XLI, Rule 10 of Order I and section 151 of the Code are the part of procedural law and so are to be liberally construed in order to advance the calls of doing substantial justice instead of killing the causes on mere fetish of technicalities.
(iii) That the appellate Court, apart from Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code has powers under section 151 of the Code to implead any party as respondent who has been left out by the appellant due to inadvertent error, even after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal subject to the consequence of Limitation Act."
8. ' The appellate Court in this regard may exercise powers under sections 107 and 151, Order I, rule 10 and Order XLI, rule 20, C.P.C. As held in case of Muhammad Nisab Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 4 others (1987 CLC 1329) relevant para at page 1331 is reproduced as under:- "4. The relevant provisions applicable to joinder of the parties are described under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. These provisions, primarily, relate to suits and not appeals. Order XLI, Rule 20, C.P.C., next, apply to appeals. It postulates that "where it appears to the Court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made a party to the appeal, is interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future date to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent". The necessary condition contemplated by Rule 20 is that only such person can be added as respondent who was a party to the suit and no one else. Therefore, in appellate Court, Rule 20 of Order XLI, C.P.C. Can only be attracted when a party to the suit is omitted in the list of appellants or respondents, as the case may be and once it is satisfied that such person is interested in the result of the appeal, under this Rule, the Court is empowered to implead such person as respondent. But this rule is not exclusive and exhaustive so as to limit or restrict the jurisdiction and authority of the appellate Court, in impleading a person having interest in the result of an appeal, though not a party to the suit. The Court in such cases, shall resort to its inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. And order that such person may be made respondent. The necessary condition in such a situation is that the Court must be satisfied that a party desiring to become respondent in appeal is, obviously interested in the result of the appeal and not otherwise.
9. The appellate Court is conferred such authority under section 107, C.P.C. Subsection (2) of this section contemplates that "subject as aforesaid, the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform, as nearly as may be, the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein." Therefore, on the satisfaction that a person, though not a party in the original suit, is interested in the result of the appeal, the appellate Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. Can direct that such person may be made respondents. In identical situation in the case of United Province AIR 1941 FC 16, Mr. Justice Gwyer, C.J. Expressed the view of the Court that when a person is found interested in the result of an appeal, though not a party in the original suit, can be made respondent in appeal, in exercise of inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. Coupled with the provisions of section 107(2), C.P.C., to the exclusion of restrictions contained under Order XLI, Rule 20 and Order XLII, C.P.C. In that case, the provisions of statute were challenged in a civil suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal. I however, it thought fit to implead U.P. Government as respondent, to enable it to secure an authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court. When the U.P.
10. Government preferred an appeal in the Federal Court, an objection was raised to the competence of the appeal and it was emphasised that the U.P. Government when not a party in the suit, could not be made respondent, as such an appeal on its behalf was incompetent. The learned Chief Justice who spoke for the Court, overruled the objection in the light of the aforesaid dictum."
11. ' The controversy in question again came under consideration before the Lahore High Court in a case titled Chan Zeb and 9 others v. Gul Zaman and 5 others (1998 CLC 1857) relevant para at page 1861 is reproduced as below:--- "10. The reading of Order XLI read with relevant rules leaves no doubt in one's mind that the Appellate Court is vested with absolute discretion to either take suo motu notice for impleading an interested person in the appeal who was party to the suit, or, direct that the said person be impleaded. There is no provision contained in the procedural law which prescribed any time limit on the powers of the Court in respect of exercise of aforesaid poweRs, Had the intention of the Legislature been so, it would have so mentioned in the law which have empowered the Appellate Court to add parties to the appeal. As there is no express restraint on the exercise of power of the Court of appeal in respect of adding to the heading of the appeal of a person interested in the result of the case. It is held that such powers are not controlled by the Limitation Act, 1908."
12. ' The newly-added respondents although are not necessary party, however, they are proper party to whom suit-land, as claimed by the respondent/appellant has been given on rent, therefore, their presence never affects the petitioner. However, observation of title of respondent shall be deemed as tentative which of course shall not affect the court while deciding the case on merit. As parties are in litigation since decades, therefore, the learned District Judge, Hattian Balla is directed to decide the appeal within 4 months.
13. ' In view of above finding no force the instant revision petition is dismissed with costs.