MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a petition under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. For impleading the petitioners as petitioners to the Civil Revision No,18/2015 and then as plaintiffs to the suit (Civil Suit No,34/2009).
2. Petitioners, who are real brothers of respondent No,5, and respondent No,5 is plaintiff of the suit (Civil Suit No,34/2009), filed this petition for impleading them as plaintiff to the suit between respondent No,5/plaintiff and the rest of respondents/defendants. Respondent No,5 filed suit (Civil Suit No,34/2009) seeking possession of the suit land through exercise of right of preemption.
Petitioners are admittedly real brothers of respondent No,5/plaintiff. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the same: is time barred and not proved. Respondent No,5/plaintiff filed appeal (CFA No,65/2014) and the same was also dismissed through order dated 18-11-2014 of the first appellate court, and feeling aggrieved from the same, respondent No,5/plaintiff has filed a revision petition, C. Rev. No,18/2015. Through this petition, petitioners have prayed as under:-- "It is humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted in impleading the petitioners as plaintiffs to the suit, Civil Suit No,34/2009 and as petitioners in the instant revision petition to meet the ends of justice."
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. From plain perusal of findings of the two courts below, it is evident that the suit of respondent No,5/plaintiff was dismissed through the concurrent findings in Civil Suit No,34/2009 and CFA No,65/2014 of the two courts, holding the same time barred. I have gone through Exh-D/1, filed in Civil Suit No,34/2009, which is copy of sale deed of the suit land and is written on 18-07-1990. I have also perused Exh- D/2, filed in Civil Suit No,34/2009, which was prepared on 26-08-2005. Learned counsel for parties admitted at bar that both the said two documents are regarding the sale of suit land of Civil Suit No,34/2009. If we read these two documents with the examination-in-chief part of the statement of the respondent No,5/plaintiff, it is abundantly clear that the suit is time barred. On 28-05-2013, learned trial court recorded statement of respondent No,5/plaintiff, wherein, he has stated that he came to know about the sale of suit land between respondents No,1 to 4 in the year 2005, i,e,, the very year of suit sale agreement. Civil Suit No,34/2009 has admittedly been filed in the trial court on 17-04-2009, as is evident from the date of institution of suit, in the copy of decree sheet annexed in the civil suit file. So, respondent No,5/plaintiff has filed the said suit after about 4 years of his knowledge of suit sale agreement between respondents Nos.1 to 4. Yet another very important aspect of the case is that the contents of paras Nos.6 and 8 of this petition are false. In the said paras, petitioners have very clearly averred that they contacted Mr. Mastana Khan, respondent No,1 on 07-05-2015, while it is an admitted fact that the said Mastana Khan, respondent No,1 died in the year 2012. In this connection order sheet dated 09-06-2012, wrote during trial proceedings of Civil Suit No,34/2009 of the trial court and the Mukhtar Nama dated 20-6-2012 of legal heirs of Mastana Khan are clearly showing that the said Mastana Khan died in the year 2012. Very astonishingly, petitioners have themselves arrayed legal heirs of said Mastana Khan to this petition and have written the petition on 07-05-2015.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,5/plaintiff stated at bar that he has no objection if the petition is allowed but, later on, before conclusion of the arguments, retracted his admission and opposed the petition. This conduct of the counsel for respondent No,5/plaintiff also shows active connivance of respondent No,5/plaintiff with the petitioners in connection with their joint mala fides.
5. So all this is an abortive attempt on the part of petitioners and respondent No,5 to drag the legal heirs of respondent No,1 in the subject litigation and the petition, therefore, merits dismissal. . This file be consigned to record.