ALI BAIG, J. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the impugned judgment/order dated 19-09-2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit whereby the learned 1st Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner/plaintif f under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for impleading Chancellor of Karakorum International University Gilgit and provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan as defendants in the suit.
1. Precisely facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the present petitioners/Plaintif fs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present respondents / defendants in the learned trial Court claiming that 7 kanals 11 marlas land including two kanal disputed land described in the head note of the plaint situated at Naltar was allotted to the father of plaintif fs/petitioners in the year 1964. Since then the plaintif fs/petitioners are in possession of suit land. In the year 2008 two kanals suit land out of allotted land of the petitioners war illegally allotted to the respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by the provincial Government Gilgit- Baltistan which is illegal, against the rights of the petitioners and void ab initio which is liable to be cancelled.
2. The present respondents being defend ants in the suit contested the suit by filing their written statement in the trial Court repudiating the averments of plaint on various legal and factual grounds. The learned trial Court framed issues in the light of divergent pleadings of the parties. Both the parties adduced their respective pro and contra evidence in the learned trial Court. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had dismissed the suit of the present petitioners/plaintif fs vide judgment dated 31-1 1-2015.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court the present petitioners/plaintif fs had filed Civil 1st Appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit.
4. During pendency of Civil 1st Appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court the petitioners/plaintif fs filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for impleading of Chancellor Karakorum International University Gilgit and Provincial Government Gilgit/Baltistan as defendants in the suit being necessary party to the suit. The learned 1st Appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the aforesaid application of the present petitioners vide the impugned judgment/order dated 19-09-2018. Hence this Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned order /judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintif fs further argued that the proposed defendants i.e. Chancellor of KIU and Provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan are necessary parties to the suit and without impleading the afore said proposed defendants in the suit no effective decree can be passed by the learned Courts either in favour of respondents or in favour of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the learned 1st Appellate Court has failed to apply it's judicious through while passing the impugned order as such the impugned order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following reported judgments of superior Courts:-
(1) PLD 2012 Sindh 449 (2) PLD 2009 Lahore 140 (3) 2011 MLD 1368 (4) 2018 MLD 700 GB Chief Court (5)
PLD 1967 K 71 1 and (6) 2007 SCMR 882 .
6. Conversely , the learned legal Advisor KIU controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners by contending that suit was filed in the trial Court in the year 2008 and the present petitioners/plaintif fs have filed the application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. in the 1st appellate Court on 09-8-2017, after lapse of more than seven years of the institution of suit. The learned Counsel for the respondents further argued that the proposed defendants are not necessary parties to the suit and the petitioners have filed the instant petition under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. at this belated stage with mala fide intention to prolong the proceedings, therefore, this revision petition of the petitioners may be dismissed. In support of his contentions the learned legal Advisor KIU has relied upon reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2010 SCMR 1 15.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
8. From perusal of record it transpires that the petitioners/plaintif fs have filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. in the 1st Appellate Court asserting/pleading therein that since the Provincial Government Gilgit- Baltistan and Chancellor of Karakorum International University are necessary parties to the suit, therefore the above named institution/persons may be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The Provincial Government Gilgit- Baltistan has allotted the disputed land to the present respondents and Vice-Chancellor Karakorum University is Administrative Head/ patron of the aforesaid university , therefore they are necessary parties to the suit and without impleading the aforesaid proposed defendants in the suit no effective decree can be passed against the either Ray.
The learned legal Advisor KIU mainly emphasised that the petitioners have filed the application under Order I, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. at belated stage which is not permissible under law. But I do not agree with this contention of the learned legal Advisor KIU as it is a settled law that the wide discretion is vested on the Courts to add the parties at any stage of proceedings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to arrive at just and correct conclusion. Mere delay in filing of application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P .C. is not fatal to the petitioners.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order/judgment dated 19-9-2018.
Passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is set aside. Consequently the application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. by the petition is accepted and petitioner are allowed to implead Chancellor of KIU and Provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan as defendants in the suit. The suit is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to decide the matter afresh after impleading the proposed defendants in the array of defendants.
10. Before parting with this judgment, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously within six months of the passing of this judgment without granting/ affording unnecessary adjournments to the parties as the matter is lingering on since 08-10-2008. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 11-03- 2019. Office is directed to send certified true copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court as well to the learned 1st Appellate Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File.