S.M. MNAN, J.- This constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.1993 of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha maintaining the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 17.5.1993 impleading respondent No.3 as party in the civil suit.
2. Petitioner Siddique Ahmad filed a civil suit which is currently pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sargodha and rh is for a declaration of ownership in respect of Khasra Nos.9/1, 9/2 measuring 7 Marlas square No.20 Chak No. 118 Janoobi, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha. The petition cited Province of Punjab respondent No.1 while Shaukat Ali son' of Imam Din as respondent No.2. Hakim Din respondent No.3 filed an application for impleading in the suit and this was accepted by order dated 17.5.1993 of the learned Civil Judge against which revision petition was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected on 3.11.1993. Both the orders are impugned in this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that earlier the petitioner filed a civil suit in respect of the same property for mandatory injunction and respondent No.3 was cited as one of the defendants and this has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The request of respondent No.3 was accepted by the learned Civil Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner himself in the earlier litigation impleaded the respondent as party. The present litigation is relatable to the same property and the lower Court found that the respondent was necessary party in the ..Uit. The same is the view of the revisional court by which the revision petition of the petitioner was rejected on 3.11.1993. Both the lower courts have exercised their jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case and I am not persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere in the impugned orders impleading the respondent as a party in the suit.
Even otherwise the petitioner has filed this petition against the interlocutory order which is not maintainable in view of Abdur Rehman versus Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1963 S.C.21).
For reasons stated above there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine.