' This petition has arisen out of a suit brought by respondents Nos. 1 to 7, Mst. Mahmooda Begum and others, against the petitioner, Haider Farooq, and respondents Nos. 8 and 9, Hussain Farooq and another, for administration of certain property left by late Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Prayer for a permanent injunction has also been made in the said suit, which is pending before Malik Nasim Hassan, Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction was issued by my learned brother, Munir A. Sheikh, J., about one and a half year ago, requiring the learned trial Court to dispose of the case within six months but it was still pending decision when an application was moved by the petitioner, under Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading Mst. Athari Begum as a party to the suit. It was averred by him that she was a widow of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi and was, therefore, a necessary party to the suit. Respondent No,1., Mst.
Mamnooda Begum is a widow and the other parties are children of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi.
2. Petitioner's plea is that before marrying Mst. Mahmooda Begum, late Syed Abul Ala Maududi had contracted marriage with Mst. Athari Begum, who is now residing in Bharat (India). According to the petitioner, in July 1990, he went to Delhi (Bharat) and came to know that Mst. Athari Begum was the first wife of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Petitioner has added that he also met her there.
3. The application was opposed by respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 9, who are Mst. Mahmooda Begum, S. Khalid Farooq and Muhammad Farooq, respectively. They contended that it was false, frivolous and vexatious. It was denied by them that late Syed Abul Ala Maududi ever contracted marriage with mst. Athari Begum. The application was, however, supported by respondent No,8, Hussain Farooq.
No reply to the application was filed by any of the other respondents.
' The application was eventually rejected by the learned Civil Judge for the following reasons:- "The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in para No, 1 of their written statement that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the only legal heirs of the deceased. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No,1 that the defendant No,1 has met Mst. Athari Begum in recent past when he has visited India. He came to know that she is widow of the deceased and earlier the petitioner/defendant No,1 had no knowledge that Mst. Athari Begum is also widow of the deceased. However, this application has not been moved by Mst. Athari Begum herself and if any such person should have been widow of the deceased she herself should have moved an application to be impleaded as party to this suit. The defendants themselves have admitted in their written statement that plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner/defendant No,1, has not filed any Nikah Nama of this marriage of the deceased with Mst. Athari Begum and nor any affidavit of any person has been filed who was witness of this marriage and therefore in the above narrated circumstances this application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Is not maintainable which as a result is hereby rejected."
' Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court, the petitioner has come up in revison to this Court.
3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mst. Athari Begum was the first wife of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi and since the suit related to the administration of his property, it was necessary that she should also be impleaded as a party thereto. According to him, plea in this regard could not be raised earlier because the petitioner did not know whether or not Mst. Athari Begum was alive, although he was aware of the fact that late Syed Abul Ala Maududi had married her before contracting marriage with respondent No,1.
4. Brief of learned counsel for the petitioner reveals that the suit was filed on 7th July, 1987, but application for impleading Mst. Athari Begum as a party thereto was moved as late as on 30th September, 1990. The petitioner is said to have visited Bharat in July 1990, when he met Mst. Athari Begum there. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming as to why he kept quiet for two months after meeting Mst. Athari Begum. No reason has also been given for failure of Mst. Athari Begum to make the application herself. If she had any difficulty in coming over to Pakistan, she could make the application through some attorney or counsel. The petitioner's application has been resisted by respondent No,1 (who is, admittedly, a widow of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi) as well as by respondents Nos. 4 and 9. No Nikah Nama or any other document hs been placed on the record indicating that Mst. Athari Begum was ever married to late Syed Abul Ala Maududi, who was an eminent scholar and Ameer of Jamaat-i-Islami, Pakistan. He was widely known. There are several writings by him and about him.
No such writing has been referred to in support of the assertion made by the petitioner. Plea of Mst.
Mahmooda Begum (respondent No, 1), who is, surely, a widow of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi, as well as that of respondents Nos. 4 and 9, who are his sons, is that the application is false, frivolous and vexatious. As pointed out by the learned trial Court, in his pleadings it was conceded by the petitioner, who is defendant No,1 in the suit, that existing parties to the suit were the only heirs of late Syed Abul Ala Maududi. Grievance of respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 9 is that application for impleading Mst. Athari Begum is aimed at further delaying the decision of the suit which was requird to be disposed of within six months, in terms of the direction of this Court. As stated earlier, direction in this behalf was issued about one and half years back.
5. Keeping all this in view, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Civil Judge whereby he rejected the application of the respondent for impleading Mst. Athari Begum as a party to the suit.
6. Needless to say that since Mst. Athari Begum has not herself applied for becoming a party to the suit, there will be no bar to the making of an application by her in this regard (if she so likes) by placing before the learned trial Court such material as may support her claim. As and when such an application is submitted before the learned Civil Judge, he shall deal with it, in accordance with law.
7. With these observations, this civil revision is dismissed in limine.