S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner brought a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of the District Judge, Quetta impleading respondents Nos. 2 to 4 alone. The first respondent moved an application under Order I rule 10, C.P.C., in the suit on 1-10-1985 for impleading him as a party to the suit. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 13-11-1986 by a short order. This order was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the learned High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned trial Court dated 13-11-1986 did not contain any reasons and it was not inquired into whether the intervenor was at all a necessary or a proper party to the suit. However, the learned High Court had the occasion to go into the question in detail and a finding has been recorded that although the respondent No.1 was not a necessary party, yet on account of his categorical claim to the suit property, he was a proper party for being impleaded in the suit for effective determination of the points involved in the matter, apart from avoiding any multiplicity of the proceedings. Here it may be mentioned that in the plaint itself the petitioner had mentioned that the respondent Haji Dost Muhammad had made a claim in respect of the disputed karez on 17-8-1985 whereupon the matter was referred by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar, Dalbandin and it was found that the said respondent had no right in the property and, it at all, he should approach the Civil Court.
Such averment in the plaint itself shows that the first respondent was laying a claim and he was also directed to approach the Civil Court. Besides, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no counter---affidavit to the intervenor's application was filed in the trial Court. The joining of the intervenor in the circumstances as a proper party was, therefore, amply justified and findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot, therefore, be said that the discretion was not rightly exercised in the case. The petition, therefore, has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.