The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that one Niaz Hussain died issueless without any widow; after his death, the mutation of inheritance was got attested in the name of his son (Bashir Hussain) on 10-11-1973. Zaheer Hussain respondent No,4, filed a suit for declaration being collateral of late Niaz Hussain; the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise in favour of Zaheer Hussain respondent No,4 by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 10-4-1979. Respondent No,4, subsequently after obtaining decree from the competent Court executed Agreement to Sell with the present petitioners. Respondent No,4 did not ready to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners were constrained to file suit for specific performance, against respondent No,4, which was decreed by the Trial Court on the basis of the compromise vide judgment and decree, dated 26-5-1980. Respondent No,3 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., for setting aside the consent decree between Zaheer Hussain and Bashir Hussain, dated 10- 4-1979. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., for impleading them as respondents as the land in question was in their possession and the mutation was also sanctioned in favour of them on the basis of the subsequent decree, dated 26-5-1980. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order, dated 1-12-1996. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed revision petition before the learned District Judge, Multan, who entrusted the same to learned A.D.J. And the same was dismissed vide order, dated 1-3-1997; hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are not only proper party but also they are necessary party as the petitioners, after obtaining decree in their favour on 26-5- 1980; the land in question is still in their possession and the mutation was sanctioned in their favour. Respondent No,3 did not implead them as party malafidely but both the Courts below did not take into consideration, the subsequent events after the decree passed by the Trial Court on 10-4-1979. He further urged that it is inherent duty and obligation of the Courts to take into consideration the subsequent events but both the Courts below did not apply their mind towards this aspect of the case at all. He further urged that judgment of both the Courts below are not in accordance with law as the principle laid down by the Superior Courts. He summed up his arguments that judgments of both the Courts below are against the spirit of Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 contended that writ petition is not maintainable as both the Courts below have concurrently decided against the petitioners. He retied upon (PLD 1981 SC 246); and (PLD 1981 SC 522). He further stated that respondent No,3 has filed an application under Order 12(2), C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 10-4-1979 in which the petitioners were not party, therefore, respondent No,3 was justified not to make them as party. He further states that in case the petitioners be impleaded as party in the proceedings; then cause of action of respondent No,3, would be changed and question of law involved in this case cannot be decided while making them as party in the proceedings. He further states that petitioners are stranger to the proceedings, therefore, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners. He relied upon the following judgments:
(i) 1992 CLC 700;
(ii) 1985 SCMR 714;
(iii) 1987 CLC 513; PLD 1965 Kar.
633.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
' It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No,3 is well-aware of the 2nd decree passed in favour of the petitioners, thereafter the mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner qua the land in question on the basis of decree, dated 26-5-1980. It is also admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, therefore, respondent No,,3 malafidely did not make them as party in the aforesaid application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Both the Courts below wrongly decided the case and did not take into consideration so to subsequent events as the principle laid down, by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court 1990 CLC 1069. It is also admitted fact that the petitioners are the real persons who would be affected; in case the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., is accepted. Even otherwise it is in the interest of parties to allow the petitioner to be made party in the proceedings to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. In case of acceptance of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., is only a piece of paper because that could not be implemented in letter and spirit against the petitioners, who are not party in the proceedings. In what circumstances a person seeking his joinder in a pending proceedings could be considered a 'necessary' or a 'proper' party to the case has been dealt with at length in the case of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1975 SC 463). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down the principles which will apply while considering joinder of a proper party in a pending action observed as follows: "Now a proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the proceedings.
The terms questions involved include all matters material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons parties is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The person must, therefore, be a person I whose interest is likely to be effected even though no relief is claimed against him. This does not, therefore, extend to person who have no interest which is likely to be effected by the proceedings nor does it embrace persons only generally interested in common with others nor can persons be added as parties so as to set up a new cause of action which does not concern the original parties.
' In a generic sense, every decision of this Court on a point of law is likely to affect everyone in this country in whose case a similar point of law arises, but this does not give every person in this country a right to intervene in every proceeding before this Court, merely because it is likely to affect him in some future proceedings."
' Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case for joinder of necessary and proper party in a pending case, I am satisfied that the petitioners though do not fall within the category of necessary party but they are certainly a proper party in application filed by respondent No,3 under section 12(2), C.P.C. I accordingly accept this writ petition, set aside the order of both the Courts below and direct the Trial Court to implead the petitioners as defendants in the said application. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4-3-1999, on which date, the respondent No,3 will file amended application and thereafter, the application shall proceed further in accordance with law.
' It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners filed this writ petition before this Court on 13-3- 1997 and following order was passed:-- "Further proceedings before the Trial Court in the matter of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., are stayed."
This fact alone is sufficient as the petitioners are bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the petitioners are proper party. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 189 of the ,Constitution. The judgments of both the Courts below are not in accordance with law as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. The judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent No,3 is distinguished on facts and law. The preliminary objection raised by respondent No,3 has no force; the judgment cited by the respondents Nos.3 and 5 counsel is also distinguished on facts and law. Even in these judgments, the writ petition is maintainable where both the Courts below decided the case by misreading or non-reading or against the principle laid down by the Superior Courts. Since the proceedings arising out of the provisions of the C.P.C., and this Court has supervisory jurisdiction by virtue of Article 203 of the Constitution, therefore, in case the judgments of both the Courts below are not in accordance with principle laid down by the Superior Courts, this Court while exercising power under Article 203 of the Constitution set aside the same. I am fortified by the reported judgment of Begum Shaheen Ramay's case PLD 1977 Lahore 1414.
' In view of above discussion, this writ petition is accepted in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.