' A suit for perpetual injunction was instituted by Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Afzal, petitioners, before the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, against the Lahore Development Authority and two otheRs,
2. Shortly, the facts are that a shop bearing No,8, Shahalam Market (Rang Mahal Market Scheme), Lahore, was purchased by the petitioners from the LDA for Rs,2,45,955 through registered sale-deed dated 7-12-1981, Annexure 'A'. The sale of the shop in question was cancelled by the LDA. This action of the respondent LDA was assailed by the petitioners through the aforesaid suit. During the pendency of the civil suit an application was moved by respondents Nos,4 to 11 for becoming party to the proceedings in the civil suit. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application of respondents Nos,4 to 11 under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. In consequence they were impleaded as party. This order of the learned trial Judge was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision petition which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 15-10-1990. The impugned order passed by respondent No,12 has been assailed through this Constitutional petition. Notices were issued to respondents Nos,4 to 11. They did not appear despite service. Notices sent to them were published in the Daily "NAWA-E-WAQT", Lahore, dated 25-4-1991. Despite publication of the notices in the newspaper again the respondents did not appear to contest the proceedings. They, therefore, were proceeded ex parte by the Court on 14-5-1991.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are bona fide pruchasers in possession of the property in question. He argues that the respondents have got nothing to do with the property in question in presence of lawful sale-deed executed by respondent No,1 in their favour. It is urged that respondent No,1 had no lawful authority to cancel the sale-deed without approaching the Civil Court.
4. The learned Legal Advisor of the LDA argues that the petitioners are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. However, he contends that he has no objection if the impugned order passed by respondent No,2 is set aside in the circumstances of this case. He states that some observation may be made in the order that in case the contesting respondent Nos,4 to 11 appear before the trial Court, they may be allowed to join the proceedings to press their application according to law.
5. I have heard the learned counsel at some length. Respondents Nos,4 to 11 did not appear despite service and as such they were proceeded ex parte. The learned Legal Advisor says that he has no objection to the acceptance of the Constitutional petition in the given circumstances. It is clear that respondents Nos,4 to 11 do not appear to be interested to contest these proceedings. Both the learned counsel agree that if at any stage of the litigation, respondents Nos,4 to 11 appear before the trial Court to press their application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., the Court may decide their request for becoming a party on its merits according to law. This being so, I feel no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 15-10-1990, passed by the learned Additional District Judge and the order of Civil Judge dated 24-5-1988. With these, observations, the Constitutional petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs.
' The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the civil suit as early as possible.