' Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No,3. She is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. This revision petition is directed against order, dated 20-7-1987 passed by learned trial Court through which names of the present petitioners who were impleaded as defendants 3 to 14 in the suit were ordered to be deleted.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale regarding property in dispute against respondents 3 and 4 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The present petitioners during the pendency of the suit made an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading them as defendants in the suit because they claimed that instead of the vendors of the agreement of sale they were the owners of the land. On 21-10-1986 learned counsel for the plaintiffs and attorney of defendant No,1/respondent No,3 herein made statement that they had no objection against the impleadment of present petitioners as defendants in the suit. The learned trial Court apart from this concession also recorded a finding that as per averments in the application of the petitioners they were necessary party in the suit therefore, the application of the petitioners was accepted through order, dated 21-10-1986 and the plaintiffs were ordered to file amended plaint which was filed on 3-11-1986 in which the present petitioners were impleaded as defendants 3 to 14.
3. The petitioners filed written-statement in which they raised the plea that in fact they were the owners of the property and not the vendor. However, subsequently on 20-7-1987, learned counsel for the plaintiffs made statement before the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs did not want to seek any relief against the defendants 3 to 14/present petitioners and as such their names be deleted. The learned trial Court passed order of deletion of the names of the petitioners and remarked that their names are hereby deleted. This order has been challenged in this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned counsel for plaintiffs and attorney of defendant No,1 having conceded to the impleadment of petitioners as defendants in the suit and the Court having also recorded a finding that as per averments of the petitioners in the application they were necessary party on the basis of which order, dated 21-10-1986 was passed for their impleadment, the learned trial Court committed an illegality in mechanically passing order, dated 20-7-1987 merely at the wish of counsel for the plaintiffs for deletion of name of the petitioners which amounts to review of earlier order, dated 21-10-1986 in which the petitioners were held to be necessary party. He also argued that it was not necessary that only that person is necessary or proper party in the suit against whom a relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs, but every person who is likely to be affected adversely or has any nexus with the point of controversy in the suit is a proper party, if not necessary party, therefore, the petitioners having claimed ownership of the property as against the vendor of the agreement as such were proper party in the suit and could not have been ordered to be deleted.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners has considerable force. The learned trial Court having held in the order, dated 21-10-1986 that petitioners were necessary party as per averments made by them therefore, the impugned order, dated 20-7-1987 passed mechanically without application of judicial mind is not sustainable which has been passed on the mere wish of the plaintiffs. Since the petitioners by raising a plea of ownership in the property which is subject- matter of sale agreement as against the vendor were certainly the persons, whose presence before the Court would have been helpful for determination of real question in controversy between the parties effectively, as such the petitioners are proper party in the suit. Whether a person is a proper party or not is not unnecessarily dependent on the question whether the plaintiffs had asked any relief against such person.
6. Mr. Amjad Hussain Syed, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 submitted that the impugned order was passed on 20-7-1987 whereas the petitioners kept quiet till 5-1-1988 when he made application for supply of certified copy which was supplied to him on 10-1-1988 and this revision petition has been filed with inordinate delay on 14-2-1988. He maintained that though no time of limitation was prescribed for filing revision petition but the revision petition suffers from laches and this Court should decline to interfere in its discretion under section 115, C.P.C.
7. Since the order impugned in this revision petition is illegal and is not tenable therefore, I am not persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of maintaining it. Even otherwise, the revision petition has not been filed after inordinate delay as argued.
8. The learned trial Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it under the law, while passing the impugned order, dated 20-7-1987. The revision petition is accepted. The said order is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. The names of the petitioners as defendants 3 to 14 as impleaded through order dated 21-10-1986 shall be restored in the plaint.