' This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6th April, 1977 of the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the order of the learned trial Court, dated 31-5-1976 rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was upheld and the first appeal of the appellants was dismissed. The appellants had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land subject- matter of the controversy was jointly owned by the parties and that mutation No, 2258 attested on 10-2-1963 by which share of non-Muslim evacuee was separated from that of the Muslim owners, orders, dated 10-4-1967, 28-2-1970, 13-8-1970, 20-9-1975 and 7-2-1976 passed by the Revenue Officer under the Land Revenue Act, were illegal, in-operative and ineffective and that the land continues to be Shamlat Deh. A prayer for grant of permanent injunction so as to restrain the respondents/ defendants from interfering in their possession in persuant to the impugned mutation and orders was also made. The learned trial Court after receiving the written statement of the respondents and going through the impugned orders rejected the plaint as it was of the view that the jurisdiction of the civil, Court to question the validity of the impugned orders is barred under section 172 of the Land revenue Act. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge agreeing with the view of the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.
2. This second appeal is liable to fail on the short preliminar objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It was pointed out that as per plaint the dispute pertains to separation b partition of the evacuee share in Shamlat Deh from that of the Muslim land owners. This being the admitted position the Province of Punjab was the necessary party at the time of the institution of the suit in the year 1976, as the evacuee property which earlier formed part of the compensation pool came to vest in the Provincial Government under Evacuee Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Province of Punjab was in fact impleaded as a defendant in the suit but in the second appeal filed in this Court, the Province was not impleaded as responder: for reason-best known to the appellants. The record bears out that the share was separated and the separated share in the Shamlat Deh was then allotted' to the displaced persons and the possession of the respective shares allocated in the partition was also delivered to the allottees and the local land owners. In these circumstances, there is substance in the plea that the appellants cannot seek reversal of the impugned decre in the absence of the necessary party i.e. The Province of Punjab. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that even the allottees were neither impleaded as respondents in the appeal nor steps were taken to prosecute this appeal in representative capacity during all this period. The rights which vested in the land owners many years ago cannot be interfered with without hearing them. At this stage n. Justification appears for giving permission to impaled them on record. The appeal thus fails on account of non-impleading of the necessary parties. Moreover, the order of the Additional_ Commissioner (Rev.), dated 13-8-1970 which was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal shows that the order regarding partition of evacuee share was passed on 3-12-1958 and then mutation No, 2258, dated 10-2-1963 was passed in implementation of order, dated 7-2-1963. The basic orders were admittedly not challenged in the suit and without assailing the said orders no relief possibly can be given to the appellant in the suit as framed and filed. For all these reasons this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.