' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.--The suit property constituting a Serai bearing No,768/L-1 situated outside Phori Gate Bannu City was ensued before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu (Suit No,659/1).
Both the parties claimed to be its owner which had led to the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C.
Under which the parties had been directed to file a civil suit. Civil suit was filed by respondents Nos.] to 5 which was contested by rest of the respondents. At the time of recording of the statement of Patwari Halqa it transpired that the Government of N.-W.F.P. And the Municipal Committee also claimed to be its owners in possession, therefore, the plaintiffs were directed to implead Municipal Committee and Deputy Commissioner, Bannu as defendants in the suit.
2. It, however, transpired that the property had earlier been transferred in favour of the petitioner and P.T.D. Had been issued in his favour, therefore, on coming to know of the litigation on 16-12-1993 he applied to the learned Civil Judge for his impleadment as party in the suit. This application was contested.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 5, it is alleged, faced with the situation managed to get away with the transfer made in favour of the applicant, dubbed it as bogus and fraudulent and managed to get manipulated reports of the Clerks concerned and obtained an order of cancellation of P.T.D. And P.T.O. From A.C. Without notice to the transferees. Moreso when the A.C. Had no jurisdiction to cancel the P.T.D. And P.T.O. Issued earlier in his favour by the competent authority. The learned trial Judge, however, on the basis of this new development rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment on 22-1-1994. The petitioner's revision petition against the same order was dismissed by the learned High Court on 29-9-1994. With the following observation:-- "It is after all a suit for possession. He claims to be the allottee by P.T.D. Which has been found forged and cancelled. Let him file an independent suit to establish his title and at this stage i,e, after four years of the institution of the suit and when the said case at the ultimate stage to be decided his application for impleadment if turned down need not be taken exception to by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Plaintiffs/respondents also stated that the application has not been filed in good faith and that it was filed at the behest of the defendants as the applicant is their close relation."
4. It was contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the disputed property admittedly P.T.O. And P.T.D. Had been issued in favour of the petitioner, therefore in the litigation regarding the title of such property, petitioner was and is a necessary party, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Courts to have impleaded him as party to the suit. That the so-called cancellation order was ab initio, void and illegal as apart from others after repeal of the Evacuee Laws the notified officers had no authority to re-open the past and closed transaction, as his jurisdiction extended only to the disposal of available property and not to sit on judgments or the orders of the authorities competently passed under the repealed laws.
5. Admittedly, as informed by the learned counsel, the petitioner had filed a civil suit regarding the property in dispute. His grievance is that in case during the pendency of his suit any adverse orders is passed against his interest in the suit in question it will create further complication and can result in multiplicity of litigation which situation can be avoided by invoking the Provision of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Similarly it was apprehended that the finding given by the Courts below in rejecting the petitioner's application and regarding P.T.O. And P.T.D. Holding the said bogus, on his back, would affect the trial of his case. These apprehensions on face of it are misconceived.
6. The learned High Court in exercise of its discretion having refused to implead the petitioner as party to the suit is not open to interference by this Court on facts and circumstances of the case when direction has been given to the petitioner to file an independent suit for declaration of his title and for challenging the order passed on his back regarding cancellation of his P.T.O. And P.T.D.
Issued in his favour as such question can be elaborately dealt with in the petitioner's suit independent. We may also observe that the observation made by the Courts below in the orders rejecting his application for impleadment has no bearing on merits of his case and is to be ignored by the Courts while giving decision regarding his title to the suit property. His apprehension about the multiplicity of the suits can be resolved, if so advised, by moving an application before the trial Court for consolidation of both the suits and their joint disposal on merits. With these observations we refuse to grant leave to appeal.