' During the pendency of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner, respondent No,6 made an application before the learned Civil Court, Bahawalpur, that he being a lessee of the Auquaf Department be impleaded as one of defendants. The application of respondent No,6 was allowed by order dated 7-11-1994 who was impleaded as one of the defendants. The review application filed by the present petitioner on the same date was also dismissed on 19-11-1995. The petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide order dated 23-9-1996.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenant is neither a necessary nor a proper party within the meaning of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as none of his rights in suit land are affected. Reliance was placed on the case of Latif Ahmad v. Mst. Rashidan (1992 CLC 1173) in support of his contention.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 has submitted that the interest of respondent No,6 would be adversely affected if respondent No,6 is kept out of the array of the defendants as he was conducted as a lessee of the agricultural land of the Auquaf Department.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The precedent case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the present case in which respondent No,6 was impleaded as defendant and he had not instituted the suit in his capacity as the plaintiff. In the case of Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that a person, by getting a declaration through Court, if likely to gain an advantage as regards his rights, cannot be refused declaration on ground of want of locus standi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect so as the justify the relief sought for. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner is respondent No,6 remains impleaded as defendant. The learned Courts below have exercised their discretion properly without my taint of illegality.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.
6. The learned trial Court is however, directed to conclude the trial of the case, if possible, within six months.