ALI BAIG, J.----This civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants under Order 1, Rule 10(2), read with section 151, C.P.C. for impleading of provincial Government of G-B and Collector Astore as defendants in the suit during pendenc y of Civil Revision Petition 82/2018 titled "123 Household of Patti Dachy , Shougroot and Hopuk through representatives v . Late Molvi Yaqeen Shah through LRs."
2. Succinctly facts necessary for disposal of the instant civil miscellaneous petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. are that the present respondents/plaintif fs (herein after called as respondents) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present petitioners/defendants (herein after called as petitioners) in the trial Court asserting therein that the respondents are entitled to irrigate their Bandobasti and Noutore lands through water of Bandobasti Channel Dachy , Shugroot and Hopuk, as the afores aid channel was constructed by forefathers of the respondents to irrigate their lands. The respondents have been irrigating their Bandobasti and Noutore lands, trees etc by the water of said channel but in the year 1988 the petitioners have stopped the water from the Bandobasti channel to irrigate the landed properties of respondents.
4. The petitioner being defendants in the suit contested the suit by way of filing of written statements in the trial Court, wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have repudiated the averments of plaint.
5. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after conducting full trial the learned trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 25-05-2013 has passed decree in favour of the present respondents. The petitioners had challenged the aforesaid judgment/decree of the trial Court in the Court of the learned District Judge Astore through civil 1st appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 31-05-2018. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore mentioned impugned judgment/dec ree of the learned 1st Appellate. Court the petitioners have filed civil 2nd appeal in this Court which is pending adjudication before this Court. In the meantime the petitioners have filed the application in hand for impleading of Provincial Government of G-B and Collector Astore in the array of the defendants.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per revenue record the disputed land is owned by the Provincial Government/Khalisa Sarkar and the respondents are tenants of the Gove rnment, therefore the provincial Government of G-B is necessary party to the suit and in absence of original owne r of suit land no effective decree can be passed by the Courts, therefore by accepting this petition the Provincial Government of G-B and Collector Astore may be impleaded as defendants in the suit and suit of the respondents may be remanded back to the trial Court for trial afresh.
7. On the other hand the learned counse l for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the respondents have filed suit for declaration to the extent of water right from disputed channel to irrigate their lands and respondents have not filed suit in respect of ownership of the landed property , thus Provincial Government and Collector Astore are not necessary parties to the suit and the petitioners have filed the instant petition with mala fide intention to prolong the proceedings, which may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
8. I have carefully heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case with their able assistance.
9. Perusal of mutations and Khasra Girdawari available on record reveals that the disputed land for which water from Bandobasti channel is required is Khalisa Sarkar as in the relevant column of mutation and Khasragridawari attached with revision petition words Khalisa Sarkar has been disclosed/written. The respondents have been shown/mentioned as tenants of Government, thus Provincial Government G-B and Collector Astore are necessary parties to the suit and without impleading them no effective decree can be passed by the Courts. It is settled principle of law that all the parties neces sary to the suit should be joined and in case they are omitted the suit is bad for non-joinder and no ef fective decree in such circumstances can be passed.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. filed by the petitioners stands accepted. Consequently the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside. The suit of the respondents/ plaintif fs is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to implead the Provincial Government of G-B through Chief Secre tary and Collector Astore as defendants in the suit and proceed with the case in accordance with law . Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 10-09-2020.
11. Before parting with this judgment it is observed that since the suit/case of the respondents is lingering on since 10-10-1989, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit of the respondents/plaintif fs within six months of the passing of this judgment positively under intimation to this Court through Registrar of this Court. After passing of judgment by trial Court if the either party files appeal or revision in the District Court Astore the learned District Judge Astore shall also decide the appeal/revision of either party within three months of the passing of judgment of the learned trial Court. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on Civil Revision petition bearing No. 82/2018. File.