This constitutional petition arises from a suit instituted by Respondent No. 3 (plaintif f) seeking a decree against Respondent No. 4 (defendant) for possession through partition of the suit property under the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012. During trial of the said suit the petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10, CPC for his impleadment as defendant on the ground that he was owner of the suit property on the basis of gift deed dated 26.02.2019. On consideration of the matter , the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not co-owner in the suit property and thus could not be impleaded as defendant in the suit. On the basis of said conclusion, the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.10.2019. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition before the Addl. District Judge, Depalpur . The said revision petition came up for peremptory hearing before the Addl. District Judge on 31.10.2019 and the following order was passed.
31.10.2019 This civil revision is fresh. Be registered.
PRESENT: Abdur Rauf Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner Preliminary arguments heard. The contention of the petitioner is that impugned order dated 23.10.20)9 is against law and facts, and learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order . Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
The contention raised by the petitioner may not be appreciated without issuing the pre- admission notices to the respondents.
Hence, pre-admission notices be issued to the respondents for 1 1.11.2019.
Announced 31.10.2019Muhammad Mohsin Addl. District Judge, Depalpur
2. The petitioner through this constitutional petition has challenged the validity of order dated 31.10.2019.
3. At the outset of hearing, I asked petitioner's counsel as to how the instant petition is maintainable against the interlocutory order of the Revisional Court. He replied that the Revisional Court while issuing pre-admission notice had not granted interim relief, which is a material irregularity and thus, the order dated 31.10.2019 is liable to be set aside. I am afraid this reply is not satisfactory . It is now well settled that constitutional petition against interim order is not competent and thus, appropriate course for the petitioner to adopt is to appear before Revisional Court, advance arguments and thereafter to invite its decision. Prior to that stage, interference in such type of interlocutory order is not desirable. This petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-.