ORDERMIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.-The validity of the order of the learned Additional District Judge,Bhakkar dated 7.11.1989 is called in question in this constitution petition.
2. The facts in brief are;that Subedar Imam Din was granted 1200 kanals of agricultural land in revenue estate Rakh Manekra District Bhakkar by the Colonization Officer of Thai Development Authority.The grant was made under Tubewell Scheme.In the year 1983 the land was resumed by the Colonization Officer,Thai Development Authority.Subedar Imam Din challenged this order unsuccessfully before the Commissioner Multan Division,Multan and then before the Member Board of Revenue.
3. Feeling dis-satisfied with the orders of the Colonization Officer,the Order of the Commissioner and the order of the Member Board of Revenue,Subedar Imam Din filed a suit for declaration in the court of learned 1 Civil Judge,1st Class,Bhakkar,that the aforesaid orders were without jurisdiction yand were,therefore,without any legal effect.
4. The suit was contested and it is still pending in the original court.Lt ^ was on 16.9.1987 when Riaz^\bdul Razzaq,Abdul Sattar and Abdul Ghafar (herein respondents) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that they were in possession of 400 kanals of land out of the land in dispute,obtained the land on lease from year to year and were entitled to seek proprietary rights in the land in dispute to the extent of their possession.Lt was prayed in this application that they may be impleaded as defendants.This application was opposed.The learned Civil Judge,1st Class ,Bhakkar vide an order dated 173.1988 rejected the application by coming to the conclusion that the period of lease in favour of applicants had come to an end and,therefore,applicants had no right to file application.
5. Feeling aggrieved by this order the applicants invoked the revisional Jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge,Bhakkar successfully.The learned Additional District Judge,Bhakkar vide an order dated 7.11.1989 accepted the application and allowed them to be impleaded as a party by holding that they were necessary party.This order is the subject matter of challenge in this constitution petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the .Order of the original court was perfectly justified and passed in exercise of lawful authority According to him the revisional court had exercised his authority without satisfying that the revision did not disclose any circumstance within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Lhave heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners in length and find no substance in these submissions.Subedar Imam Din had filed the suit for declaration in respect of order of the Member Board of Revenue ' passed in exercise of authority vested in him.The suit has been instituted in residual jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure The applicants respondents made an application wherein it was demonstrated that they were in actual possession of 400 kanals of land and were , entitled to seek the proprietary rights and in alternative further extension of the lease in their favour .The learned revisional court after taking into consideration the application and the relevant scheme came to the conclusion that they were I necessary party.The order of the revisional court is completely just and is not open to any legal flaw. '
8. The constitutional jurisdiction is intended to keep the functionaries of State within the orbit of their authority.In this case the revisional court has neither over-stepped his authority nor has exercised its authority with any patent illegality or material irregularity affecting the jurisdiction of the court.The petition is found to be without any merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine.