' Muhammad ALAM, J.--- Order dated 25-11-2014 of the learned first appellate court that he passed in C.F.A. No, 72/2013, has been challenged through this petition. Mr. Ali Afsar, petitioner No, 3, appeared and requests for adjournment. Request refused. I have heard learned counsel for respondents and have gone through the file.
2. C.F.A. No,72/2013 was directed against judgment/order dated 19-9-2013 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar. Through the said order, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Said judgment/order found passed after full trial of the case. During pendency of the appeal (C.F.A. No,72/2013), petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a petition under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. From plain perusal of the said petition, it is very clear that petitioners/plaintiffs prayed for impleading AKRSP, an NGO, party to the case.
3. Para No,7 of the impugned order is very relevant and for ready reference, I reproduce the same hereunder:-
7. "There is no dispute between the parties that the local organization of AKRSP developed and improved the suit property and brought it under irrigation with the financial assistance of the AKRSP and used it as a plantation nursery during the period from 1984-85 to 1993-94. The AKRSP with the aim of uplifting the standard of living of the people of the area had merely provided financial assistance to the local organization as such they have no concern, whatsoever, with the title or ownership of the suit property. The appellants/plaintiffs have claimed no relief against the AKRSP even in the application in hand. The learned counsel of the appellants during the course of arguments stated that the AKRSP is not a necessary rather a proper party to suit. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the previous and subsequent ownership of the suit property which has no concern, whatsoever, with the AKRSP. Therefore, the presence of the General Manager, AKRSP before Court is not necessary for the decision of the case."
' The petition in hand is simply for adding AKRSP as party to the case. I have heard learned counsel for respondents on this single point, and in that connection, I had to see the role of AKRSP in connection with subject matter of the suit. According to material available on file, the AKRSP is not claiming any title to the suit land or even any kind of proprietary right to the subject matter of the suit land. In this connection, I have gone through the judgment/order dated 19-09-2013 of the learned trial court, wherein, also there is no issue showing any title or claim of title of AKRSP to the suit land. It is very important to note that adding any party to the case is the discretion of the learned trial court.
4. I, therefore, fully agree with the above findings of the learned first appellate court. Petition in hand found baseless and based on mala fides; therefore, rightly dismissed by the first appellate court.
Impugned order upheld and this petition stands dismissed. Petitioners to bear costs. File be consigned to record.