1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-3-1975--passed by 8th Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, whereby he allowed the application made by the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. And impleaded them as party to the suit, filed by the applicant against the respon--dent No. 1.
2. Briefly, the facts as alleged are that, on 21-6-1959, the applicant and the respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement under which the respondent had-- to raise a garden of mango trees in the applicant's land bearing Survey Nos. 77, 78, 79, 130 and 73 situated in Deh Khar Kharo, Tapo Konkar, Taluka. Karachi within 10 years and after he had raised a full-fledged garden according to the prevailing custom, he was entitled to have 50 paisas share in the produce of the mango trees and the said survey numbers. The respondent, however, did not fulfil the terms of the agreement in that, Survey Nos. 77 and 79 lay vacant and the growth on the rest of the survey numbers was very poor and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the applicant filed suit bearing No. 991/1974 against the respondent No. 1 seeking declaration that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to 50 paisas share in the produce of the garden and had acquired no right or interest in the suit land.
3. On coming to know of the suit, the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed an application under Order 1, rule 10, C. P. C. For being impleaded as defendants in the suit on the ground that they were co-owners of the Survey Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80 and 130 to the extent of 6 annas which they had purchased in the year 1939 under the sale deed. Similarly, respondent No. 10 also filed an applica--tion under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. For being impleaded as defendant in the suit on the ground that he had 2 annas share in the Survey Nos. 77, 78,. 79, 80 and 130.
4. The applicant contested these applications on the grounds (i) that survey No. 80 claimed by the intervenors was not the subject-matter of the suit and that Survey No. 73 which was the subject- matter of the suit was not involved in the intervenors' applications; (1i) that since the irtervenors were out of possession for 35 years and the applicant was in exclusive possession and. Enjoyment of the said survey numbers for those 35 dears, the intervenors had no right or interest in the land;
(iii) that, since the respondents were not party to the agreement between applicant and respondent No. 1, their inclusion in the suit was not necessary as it would enlarge the controversy and that the respondents had to file a separate suit if they claimed any right: or interest in the land.
5. Both these applications came up for hearing before the learned 8th Civil Judge, Karachi Mr. Nazir Ahmed G. Akhund who heard` the detailed arguments on 13-I1-1974 and thereafter fixed the case for orders, on 27-11-1974. No orders were, however, passed on this date and the case was last fixed on 22-1-1975, on which date it transpired that Mr. Nazir Ahmed G. Akhund, had been transferred and was succeeded by Mr. A. Sattar F. Shaikh and the matter had been adjourned to 6-2-1975. On 6-2- 1975 also the case did not proceed and was adjourned to 15-2-1975. On 15-2-1975 the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 28-2-1975 for the same purpose. 28- 2-1975 was declared as a public holiday and the matter, was therefore, adjourned to 1-3-1975 on which date also the new presiding officer was on leave and the case was again adjourned to 18-3- 1975 on which date the learned Civil Judge, without hearing the parties or their counsel, passed the impugned order allowing the application made by respon--dents Nos. 2 to 9. He passed no order on the application filed by respondent No. 10 for the same relief.
6. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision application.
7. Mr. Haji Muhammad A. Memon, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the learned trial Judge in exercising his jurisdiction acted with material irregularity in that-
(i) he had passed the impugned order without hearing the parties or their counsel at any stage and without having the advantage either of the arguments or of the case-law which the counsel had earlier relied upon before the previous Judge and intended to repeat before the present trial Judge;
(ii) he had not even applied his mind to the case inasmuch as, there were two applications which bad to be decided by him, ore made by respondents 2-9 and the other by respondent No. 10, but the order would show that he decided only the application made by the respon--dents Nos. 2-9 ;
(iii) be had incorrectly mentioned in the order that "counsel for the applicants intervenors and the parties" were heard as in fact none was heard by the learned Civil Judge.
8. Mr. S. M. Sadiq, learned counsel for the respondent, in reply conceded that the learned Civil Judge after taking over passed the impugned order without hearing, either the parties or their counsel at any stage. He also conceded that the learned trial Judge did not have the advantage either of the arguments or of the case-law that was cited before his predecessor. He also had to admit that the learned Judge had incorrectly mentioned in his order that the parties and their counsel were heard. He, however, contended that, notwithstanding above, the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional illegality to call for interference in this revision.
9. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, I find that there is considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is an admitted position that the learned trial Judge after succeeding his predecessor did not at any stage, hear the parties or their counsel and quietly passed the impu--gned order, although, admittedly, the applications filed before him had been seriously contested and detailed arguments and profuse case-law had been cited before his predecessor. It is also a fact that the learned Civil Judge was required to decide two applications, one made by the respondents Nos. 2- 9 and other by respondent No. 10, but reading of his order would show that he did not even consider, much less decide, the application filed by the respondent No. 10. It is also a fact that he has incorrectly mentioned in his order that parties and their counsel were heard in the case. Such being the admitted position, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge had judicially decided the case before him. It is a basic requirement o judicial determination of a case that no judicial order should be passed without hearing the parties or their counsel. In the instant case, admittedly, the applicant was represented by his counsel who had earlier argued the case in detail before the predecessor of the present trial Judge and had been attending the Court thereafter on each date of hearing expecting to re-argue the matter before the present trial Judge, but the learned Civil Judge after taking over gave no such opportunity to the applicant or his counsel and proceeded to pass the order quietly without having the advantage of arguments of the learned counsel and the case-law intended to be cited before him and thus failed to comply with the aforesaid basic requirement of judicial determination of cases. The disadvantage of deciding cases without hearing parties or their counsel is apparent in this very case in that, two applications had to be decided by him, one filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 and the other by the respondent No. 10, but the reading of the impugned order would indeed show that the learned trial Judge has not even adverted to, much less considered arid decided, the application filed by the respondent No. 10, with the result that this application has still to be heard and decided. This would not have happened if only the learned Civil Judge, after taking over, had heard the parties or their counsel. It appears that the learned Judge adopted this method, in his anxiety to earn units. But, surely, this is not a legitimate earning and the method adopted by him cannot be approved.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this revision application and set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the trial Judge for deciding afresh both the applications filed under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., after bearing the parties or their counsel. The applications shall be decided by a Judge other than the Judge who passed the impugned order.