ALI BAIG, J.----Through the instant revision petition filed under Section 115 read with Section 151, C.P.C, the petitioners/defendants have challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 19-5-20108 passed in civil 1st appeal No. 97/20,14 by the learned District Judge Ghizer, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has allowed the petition filed under Order 'I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. by the present respondents/plaintiffs and has remanded the case to learned trial court with the direction to implead the L.Rs of late Dardomand Shah as defendants and proceed the case according to law and procedure.
2. Brief facts forming back ground of the instant civil revision petition are that the present respondents /plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit land fully described in the heading of plaint against petitioners/defendants in the trial court.
3. The present petitioners being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing of their written statement in the trial court repudiating the averments of plaint on many legal and factual grounds. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed necessary issues to determine the factual controversy between the parties. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims and on conclusion of trial the learned trial court after hearing arguments on behalf of the both the parties had dismissed the suit of the present respondents/plaintiffs vide the judgment/decree dated 13-11-2014. The said judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court was challenged through civil 1st appeal in the court of the learned District Judge Ghizer.
4. During pendency of civil 1st appeal, the present respondents/plaintiffs filed an application before the learned 1st appellate court under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for impleading of one Barkat Shah and four other who are legal heirs of late Dardomand Shah as defendants in the suit. The learned 1st appellate court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties on the aforesaid application filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs has allowed the said application filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. vide the impugned judgment/order dated 19-5-2018.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate, the present petitioners/defendants have preferred the instant revision petition in this court.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned District Judge Ghizer is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set- aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the present petitioners/defendants in their written statement had pointed out that L.Rs of Dardomand Shah are necessary party to the suit and respondents /plaintiffs have not impleaded the L.Rs of late Dardomand Shah as defendants and suit is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary parties but the present respondents/plaintiffs had denied this fact in their rejoinder filed in the trial court, hence the present respondents/plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct and admission to file the aforesaid application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for impleading of L.Rs of above named person as defendants at this belated stage.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this revision petition and controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that admittedly the proposed defendants/L.Rs of Dardomand Shah are necessary party to the suit and the petitioners/defendants had also raised preliminary objection in their written statement that L.Rs of above named person are necessary party to the suit as such the learned 1st appellate court has rightly allowed the petition of the respondents filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the trial court or appellate court can implead necessary party as plaintiffs or defendants in contemplation of the provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. at any stage of proceeding to arrive at just and correct conclusion.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
9. From perusal of record it transpires that the present petitioners/defendants in Para 9 of legal objections, of their written statement have stated that L.Rs of Dardomand Shah are necessary party to the suit and the plaintiffs have failed to implead the L.Rs of the above named person as defendants in the suit, hence the suit is rejectable due to non joinder of the necessary parties. Admittedly the proposed defendants/L.Rs of Derdomand Shah are necessary and proper parties to the suit as admitted by the present petitioners/defendants in Para 9 of preliminary objections of their written statement but the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that despite raising of objection by the petitioners/defendants in their written statement filed in the trial court that the legal heirs of late Dardomand Shah are necessary party to the suit, the plaintiffs/present respondents have failed to file an application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. in the learned trial court for impleading the L.Rs of above named person as defendants and have filed the application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. at belated stage before the 1st appellate court therefore, the respondents/defendants are estopped by their conduct and admission to file the aforesaid application before the 1st appellate court. But I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants as the respondents / defendants have filed an application before the learned 1st appellate court praying therein that the L.Rs of late Dardomand Shah are necessary and proper parties to the suit therefore, they may be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Trial Court or appellate court has ample power/jurisdiction to allow such proposed defendants to be impleaded as defendants, if they have some right or interest in the subject matter of the case. Parties claiming interest could not be kept away.
10. Even otherwise it is settled law that wide discretion is vested on the courts to add the parties at any stage of proceedings to avoid/prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to arrive at fair and correct conclusion. My this view is fortified by view expressed by the Hon'ble Judge of Lahore High Court in reported judgment/case 2004 MLD 1395.
11. Upshot of above discussion is that the learned 1st appellate court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgment /order and the learned counsel for the parties has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.
12. In view of above, this civil revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to costs.
Resultantly the impugned order dated 19-5-2018 handed down/passed by the learned District Judge Ghizer is maintained.
13. Before parting with this judgment it is observed/noticed that the suit of the plaintiff is lingering on since 08-4- 2011, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably with six months of the passing of this judgment. File.