' Mst. Sardar Begum respondent No,3 filed a suit for possession through partition against her real brothers Alauddin, Muzaffar Din, Riaz Din, and Manzoor Ahmad respondents Nos.4 to 7 in respect of property bearing No, B/250, Nia Mohallah, Rawalpindi. Tariq Mahmood son of Muzaffar Din respondent No,5 filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading him as a party in the said suit on the ground that before the death of the mother of the contesting respondents Nos.4 to 7. She had executed a will in his favour in respect of the house in dispute by virtue of which he had become its exclusive owner, that since he was working in Abu Dhabi he was not aware of the litigation in respect of the said house and on coming to know of it he moved the application for impleading him as party. The contesting respondents resisted the said application. The Civil Court dismissed the application on 19-3-1989 on the ground that the suit was pending since long and a preliminary decree had already been passed and as such there was no ground to implead him as party at this stage.
' Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 4-4-1989. He filed W.P. No,555/89 which was not pressed and dismissed on 12-1-1990. He has filed this writ petition again to challenge the above ordeRs,
2. Learned counsel contends that the Courts below had dismissed the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Mainly on the ground that it had been filed after more than 7 years and since preliminary decree had already been passed there was no ground to implead the petitioner as party to the suit. According to him, application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Could be made at any stage of the proceedings. As regards the effect of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition he contends that since it was not finally adjudicated upon the present writ petition is competent.
3. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the suit was almost ripe for final decision when on 14-2-1989 Tariq Mahmood petitioner moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.
Through his attorney that he be impleaded as party to the suit on the ground that he was owner of the house in dispute on the basis of will executed in his favour on 10-1-1970 by Mst. Raj Begum. The petitioner is son of Muzaffar Din one of the contesting defendants. In the written statement filed by him he did not disclose that the disputed house stood transferred in favour of his son by his mother by way of will. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the suit for partition could be decided effectively in his absence and that his rights were not going to be prejudiced in any manner.
5. The suit is pending since 1982. The alleged will was executed on 14-1-1970. The defendants who were resisting the suit since long had neither mentioned in the written statement or in the evidence about the will in question. The Courts below were of the opinion that the application had been moved to prolong the suit. Their observation seems to be correct. In this view of the matter, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioneRs, No legal or factual error appears in their ordeRs, Accordingly, I do not feel persuaded to interfere in the matter in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and dismiss the writ petition in limine.