' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the order dated 13-6-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge Rahimyarkhan whereby during pendency of appeal an application of the appellants for adding the names of the parties, which were not impleaded as respondents in the original appeal, was accepted.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration which was decreed on 11-12-2000. Respondents/some of the defendants preferred an appeal wherein some of the codefendants were not made party as respondents. During pendency of the appeal on 30-5-2001, the appellants moved two applications; for permission to implead omitted defendants as respondents in the appeal, other application for condonation of delay. The respondents/decree- holders in the appeal filed reply to both the applications. The learned first appellate Court through the order impugned dated 13-6-2001 accepted both the applications and allowed the appellants to implead the omitted defendants as respondents in the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the order passed by the learned first appellate, Court allowing the applicants to implead the omitted parties is without jurisdiction. He states that the appeal was defective, therefore, was not competent. Further states that the order has been passed under Order XLI Rule 20, C.P.C., therefore, this civil revision is competent.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents state that the order has been passed under section 151, C.P.C., therefore, the revision is not competent. Further state that the learned first appellate Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it under the law, therefore, the revision is not competent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length. I have noticed that the suit was filed by the revision petitioners and it was decreed. The appeal was filed by some of the defendants and the omitted persons were co-defendants, application had been moved to implead them as respondents in the appeal, there was no legal bar in allowing the applications therefore, the permission granted by the learned first appellate Court to implead the omitted respondents in the appeal as respondents is not open to challenge before this Court. In the peculiar circumstances of this cage, the learned first appellate court has rightly relied upon the pronouncement reported as "Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, District, Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others" (1997 SCM R 1692).". In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to show any jurisdictional defect in the jurisdiction exercised by the learned first appellate Court. In this view of the matter, I see no force in this revision petition, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.