Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J.--Through this, petition, petitioner Nizamuddin Mansoori has called in question order dated. 16.11.2015, passed by learned Ist. Additional District Judge, Sanghar whereby Civil Revision Application No. 13 of 2014 re: Nizamuddin Mansoori v. Riffat Shahnaz & others filed against order dated 25.8.2014, passed by. Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar , allowing the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC in F.C. Suit No. 04 of 2014 re: Nizamuddin Mansoori v. Riffat Shahnaz & others and joining the applicants/interveners as defendants in the said suit, has been dismissed.
'2. Briefly' the facts of the case are that the petitioner Nizamuddin Mansoori has filed a suit being F.C. Suit No, 04 of 2014 re: Nizamuddin Mansoori v. Riffat Shahnaz & 5 others in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar , for specific performance of contract with subsequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of an agreement of sale dated 19.1.2010, allegedly executed between the Defendant No, 1 and the plaintif f in respect of an area of 2091 sq. ft. out of C.S. No, 950 Ward `A, Sanghar . Pending the suit, Respondents No, 7 to 10/interveners Abdul Latif, Zulfiqar Ali both sons of Abdul Razzak, Mst. Rukhsana wife of Zulfiqar Ali and Mst. Uzma wife of Abdul Latif filed an application under Order I Rule 10., CPC seeking their joining as defendants in the proceedings of the above suit on the ground that they have purchased an area of 9923 sq. feet, out of total area of 12019 sq. ft from C.S. No, 950, situated in Ward 'A' Sanghar through registered sale deed dated 4.2.2010, showing therein that in the remaining area of the said C.S. No, 950, a Telenor Tower is installed and no area claimed to have been purchased by the plaintif f through alleged agreement out of the aforesaid C.S. No. 950 was available; that the interveners/Respondents No. 7 to 10 have already filed Rent Application No. 01 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking ejectment of the Petitioner/plaintif f from the subject property belonging to the applicants and, thus, the applicants are necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the proceedings of the suit and in their absence conflicting judgments would come into the field. After hearing counsel for the parties and intervenors, the leaned trial Court allowed the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC vide order dated 25.8.201 1, which was called in question in Civil Revision Application No, 13 of 2014 that has been dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2015, passed by the 1st. Additional District Judge, Sanghar , hence this petition.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned Revisional Court are illegal; that the interveners/Respondents No, 7 to 10 ought not to have been joined as party in the suit filed by the petitioner against the Defendants No, 1 to 6; and, that both the. learned Courts below have committed illegality , while passing the impugned orders. He, therefore, prays that petition may be allowed and the impugned orders by both the Courts below may be set aside. He has placed his reliance on the cases of S.M. Ilyas v. Karachi Building Control Authority (PLD 2001 Karachi 85), Province of Punjab v. Messrs Qavi Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. (2007 MLD 89), Al-Hoqani Securities and I.C. (Put.) Ltd. v. National Clearing Company of Pakistan (PLD 2009 Karachi 227), Muhammad Saddiq v. Mst. Ruqaya Begum (PLD 2001 Karachi 60), National Bank of Pakistan v. Syed Muzammal Hussain (PLD 1965 Karachi 633), Vidur Impex Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartment Pvt. Ltd. ( 2013 SCMR 602 ).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has mainly contended that learned trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court after appreciating the material placed before them and considering the arguments of learned counsel, for the parties, have passed the impugned orders in an exhaustive manner; and, that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned orders. He, therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed. He has placed his reliance on the cases of Muhammad Naeem Butt v. Shaukat Ali (2008 SCMR 1024 ), Hazrat Khan v.
Amanullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1217 ), Zia-ur -Rehman v. Additional District Judge (2012 YLR 1257 ), Jamila Pirzada v. Mansoor Akbar (2011 CLC 1619 ), Mst. Farasa Aijaz v. Qamran Construction (Put.) Ltd. (2012 CLC 1477 ), Hussain Ali v. Shaikh Muhammad Shahid (2011 CLC 1239 ) and Alam Khan v. Pir Ghulam Nabi Shah & Co. (1992 SCMR 2375 ).
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material brought on record.
6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that the Respondents No, 7 to 10 namely Abdul Latif, Zulfiqar Ali, Mst. Rukhsana and Mst. Uzma claiming themselves to be the owners of the subject property through registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010, filed application under Order I Rule 10, CPC seeking their joining as defendants in the proceedings of suit being FC Suit No, 4 of 14 re: Nizamuddin Mansori vs. Riffat Shahnaz and others in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Sanghar; undisputedly the rent application under the provisions of Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, filed by the Respondents No, 7 to 10 against the plaintif f/ petitioner , seeking his ejectment from the subject property was filed before the learned Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar prior to the filing of the subject suit, but the plaintif f/ petitioner Nizamuddin without joining them as party has filed the aforesaid suit against Mst. Riffat Shahn az and others although the Responden ts No, 7 to 10/intervenes, who having already been tagged in litigation with the Petitioner/plaintif f over the subjec t property claiming it to be their property , were necessary and proper party and in their absence no effective decree, could be passed rather adjudication of the suit would definitely have affected their rights and interest over the subject property , depriving them of opportunity of hearing and advancing their pleas. In our humble view, impleadment of the intervenors as defendant in the subject suit has caused no prejudice to any party , for, the parties would be having opportunity to establish their respective rights and claims, and, thus, instead of objecting to the joining of the Respondents No, 7 to 10/intervenors as party to the suit, the Petitioner/plaintif f should have welcomed it, more so when the intervenors asserted their ownership and interest in the subject property , so as to avert the multiplicity of the proceedings, otherwise on their non-impleading as party, no effective decree could be passed, for, the main object of making a person as a party to the proceedings is to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and it is conducive for the administration of justice that all parties having interest in the subject property should be before the Court and are provided opportunity to defend their rights. We have seen the impugned order dated 25.8.2014, passed by the learned trial Court, allowing application under Order I Rule 10, CPC of the Respo ndents No, 7 to 10 and joining them as defendants and the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the learned Revisional Court namely 1st Additional District Judge, Sanghar dismissing the Revision Application filed against the aforesaid order and find that both the impugned orders are patently well reasoned, having been passed by both the learned Courts below after considering the material brought on. record and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in a proper manner .
7. The cases quoted at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner , for, in the case of Muhammad Sadiq (supra), the 'application under Section 153, CPC filed by the legal heirs of Abdul Wahid seeking amendment in the date of order in execution proceedings on the ground that error had occurred, due to inadvertent clerical mistake and ultimately the matter was brought before this Court in writ petition, in which, the petitioners made the Province of Sindh through Secretary Law Department as respondent to overcome the objection that might be raised by the Writ Branch on the maintainability of the petition; the case of Province of the Punjab (supra), involved the proceeding of the suit for recovery of damages and compensation on account of breach of contractual obligations, wherein the defendants, who were not party to the contract and there was no question of any breach thereof by them, sought for deletion of their names from the array of the defendants; in the case of National Bank of Pakistan (supra), the plaintif f/bank sought for joining of KPT as co-defendant in the suit for recovery of some amount with interest, in which, the plaintif f/bank had stood surety for the defendant firm and in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders (Pvt.) Limited (supra), the appellants had filed application after seven years of passing of the injunction order seeking their impleadment as party to the suit, who had purchased the subject property in subsistence of order of injunction, passed by Delhi High Court, which had restrained the Respondent No. 2 from alienating the suit property or creating third party interest therein, and whereas, the cases of Al-Hoqani Security and Investment Corporation and S.M. Ilyas & another (supra) are against the petitioner , for, the applicants/ intervenors being necessary party were joined as defendants in the suits in both the said cited cases. On a query , learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondents No, 7 to 10 have since been joined as defendants before the trial Court and they have also filed their written statements and the matter is now fixed for evidence after framing of the issues by the trial Court.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the humble view that (the learned trial Court by allowing the application of the intervenors/Respondents No, 7 to 10 under Order I Rule 10, CPC, and joining them as party to the aforesaid suit and the learned Revisional Court by dismissing the Revision Application filed against the aforesaid order have not committed any illegality . The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below , attracting exercise of jurisd iction of this Court under the provisions of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Accordingly , this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by us on 19.10.2017, whereby this petition was dismissed.