QAISER RASHID KHAN J.---This writ petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 4-8-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V D.I.Khan, whereby revision petition of Muhammad Nawaz Khan, respondent No,1, was accepted and the ex parte decree passed in Suit No, 55/1 on 28-3-2006 was set aside.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the filing of instant petition are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit against the respondents Nos.2 to 12 claiming ownership of the property measuring 2698 kanals and 9 marlas on the basis of an agreement/sale-deed allegedly executed between him and the said respondents on 21-6-2005 for a sale consideration of Rs,26,98,000. As per the petitioner/plaintiff, the transaction took place at Karachi in the presence of witnesses mentioned in the agreement. The case was initially fixed before the learned Civil Judge Kulachi for securing the attendance of the said respondents/defendants on 3-9-2005 and was adjourned through note reader to 19-9-2005. On the very next date, the counsel of the petitioner/plaintiff requested the trial court through an application to issue a proclamation in the newspaper which was accordingly ordered through daily Mashriq on 1-10-2005 on which date the learned trial Judge was on leave.
Then on the next date another request was made for proclamation in the daily Pakistan which was accordingly published on 27-10-2005 and all the defendants were placed ex parte and the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to produce his ex parte evidence which he accordingly did on 10- 11-2005. Final arguments were addressed before the trial court on 6-1-2006 and on 19-1-2006 the learned Civil Judge keeping in view the record before him admitted in his order sheet No,12 that the Central Government was shown as owner of the suit property in the Revenue Record and accordingly Record Keeper of the Settlement Department D.I. Khan was summoned along with record and examined as P.W.5 and finally on 28-3-2006 an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The same decree was in turn challenged by the respondent No,1 through an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was dismissed by the learned trial court on 23-4- 2010 but the revision petition against the same was accepted by the learned Additional District judge-V, D.I.Khan on 4-8-2011, which has been impugned through the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel argued that though respondent No,1 did not have the locus standi to file petition under section 12(2), C.P.C., but still his revision petition was accepted and de novo trial was ordered; that the learned revisional court lacked the jurisdiction to re-open a closed case and to implead the Federal Government, Provincial Government through SMBR, Additional Commissioner and local settlement authorities as defendants in the suit, as none of the said functionaries assailed the ex parte judgment and decree and moreover they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit; that the ex parte decree was very much in accordance with law and procedure and through the impugned judgment, the revisional court has committed grave illegality and irregularity which warrants to be interfered with through the instant petition.
4. Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. We understand that the exercise as conducted by the petitioner through notices to the respondents/defendants Nos.2 to 9 residing at Karachi was done in a surreptitious manner as has been observed by the learned revisional court. Even the single address of respondents Nos.2 to 9 showing their common residence at some place at Nazim Abad, Karachi is not above suspicion and more so in a situation where the summons were sent through a letter under registered AD cover being returned with the remarks that the address so provided by the petitioner/ plaintiff was inadequate. Rather than asking the petitioner/plaintiff to provide correct and complete addresses of the defendants, the learned trial judge obliged the petitioner by straightaway acceding to his request for publication in the newspaper. The trial court then hastened to place the defendants ex parte on 27-10-2005 and then the petitioner wasted no time in producing his entire evidence comprising four witnesses on 10-11-2005. Even the P.Ws. Barring the patwari halqa (P.W.1) did not record their statements in unison and as per the averments in the plaint. P.W.2, namely, Muhammad Zubair, though admitted the transaction between the plaintiff/petitioner and the respondents/defendants at Karachi, but then some how unwittingly spilled the beans when he stated that the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 9 and 10 were not present at the time of transaction as they were abroad and their consent was solicited on telephone. P.W.1 brought the revenue record pertaining to the suit property and admitted in his statement that the entire suit property belonged to the central government except a kanal or two. The learned revisional court in order to reach to the truth of the matter on its own summoned the officials of the DOR&E D.I.Khan but except on one date, the said officials displayed total neglect and failure in the discharge of their official duty as has been observed by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. Little wonder that a huge property mentioned above though entered in the name of the central government but still the petitioner/plaintiff thought it fit not to implead it as a party in the main suit before the trial court, which speaks volumes for the manner in which the proceedings were conducted before the trial court in indecent haste with a shadow of doubt hovering all along.
6. Even the evidence produced on record showing the central government to be the owner of such huge property was not taken into consideration by the trial court while decreeing the suit ex parte.
Therefore, the learned trial Judge had wrongly passed the ex parte decree which the learned revisional court has rightly set aside through the impugned order, because without impleading .
The government functionaries as defendants in the suit and affording them opportunity of hearing through de novo trial, no efficacious decree could be passed. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect which would warrant interference by this court in its writ jurisdiction.
7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.