' Briefly, the facts forming the background of this case are; a suit titled "Munir Khan etc. v. Zahoor Khan etc." was pending before Civil Court at Kasur. The petitioners claimed to have acquired the entire suit property through sale and exchange, earlier, and their plea is that the abovesaid suit has been filed by Munir Khan etc. In collusion with the defendants Zahoor Khan etc. So as to adversely affect their rights/interest in the suit property. The petitioners were intentionally not impleaded as party in the suit. The application moved by them for impleadment was turned down by the trial Court. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order refusing to implead them as a party which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide order 15-7-1987. The case was remanded to the trial Court to implead the petitioners as party and then decided the case.
2. On 3-11-1987, the petitioners were impleaded as party and amended plaint was filed. However, before they could be afforded an opportunity of filing a written statement, they were proceeded against ex parte and on the basis of a consenting statement made by the other defendants in the case namely Zahoor Khan etc., on 20-12-1987 the suit was decreed.
3. An application for setting aside ex parte decree, dated 20-12-1987 was moved by the petitioners before trial Court on 7-4-1988 and a number of grounds were urged in support of the prayer made in the application. This application was contested hotly by the plaintiffs in the suit. It remained pending adjudication for a long time. On 6-7-1991, the petitioners moved an application seeking permission to amend the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 20-11-1987.
4. The learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 22-1-1992 rejected the amendment application. The revision filed was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 27-5-1992. Both the orders are impugned in this writ petition.
5. I am afraid, there is no force in this writ petition. The impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 6-7-1991 is of interlocutory character vires whereof can be challenged by the petitioners as a result of final decision of the case. The amendment sought, prima facie, does not fall within the purview of Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Be that as it may, no error of jurisdiction has been pointed out so as to justify interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court. Dismissed. No costs.