' The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Province of Punjab, District. Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore and Recovery Officer, Excise and Taxation Department Zone-D, Old City, Lahore. The prayer in the suit was that PT. Form No,X issued by the defendants on 16-12-1994 for depositing an amount of Rs,$1,174,88 for the year 1994.95 be declared illegal and nullity in law on the ground that no criterion has been used by the defendants for assessment of the property tax with a further declaration that it is also illegal on the ground that the plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute and name of others be excluded and that the defendants may also be directed to make correction in the record that the defendants are entitled to pay the tax and he should be entered as sole owner in record of the property in dispute. Mst. Hamida Squat filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., read with section 151, C.P.C., for impleading Mst. Hameeda Begum and Mat. Jamila Begum being daughters and legal heirs of Syed Noor Ellalti as party, which was allowed by, the learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 26-9-1996. Against this order the petitioner filed a Revision Petition in the Court of District Judge, Lahore, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 6.12-1997 with a special costs of Rs,5,000 holding the petition as baseless, frivolous, malidous and vexatious. Hence this writ petition.
2. In response to pre-admission notice Mr. A.D. Naseem, Advocate, and Mr. Hamid All Mirza, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondents Nos,3 and 4 respectively, while the learned Additional Advocate-General is present on behalf of respondents Nos.5 to 7. This case has been heard at length and the same is being decided as a notice case.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., is not maintainable as the respondents had got independent remedy to file a suit for declaration, which are already pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction and in the present lis they were not get all necessary or proper party and the learned Trial Court by allowing the above said application has committed material illegality and irregularity and the judgment of learned Additional District Judge confirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is also without jurisdiction and illegal. The learned counsel has also referred AIR 1925 Nagpur 373 to contend that the plaintiff, who comes in the Court is the dominos litis and it must always be left to him to choose his opponent against whom he has to claim the relief in the suit. No stranger has any business to intrude into the case and force himself upon a plaintiff who does not want him and who does not claim any relief against him. The plaintiff is best judge of his own interest. If the seeks relief against a particular individual and impleads that individual as a sole defendant, it is not the look-out of the Court or of any other third person to see whether somebody else must be allowed to intrude, into the case as a co-defendant, against the plaintiff's will simply because that third person represents to the Court that he is a person who would be affected by the decision.
3-A. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4 have contended that the relief claimed by the petitioner to the effect that he be declared as sole owner of the property in dispute would directly affect the respondents as they are also legal heirs of Syed Noor Ellahi and are also owners of the property in dispute. It is further contended that the names of respondents exist in Excise Department record on the basis, of which the impugned notice was issued, therefore, the prayer of petitioner that the names of respondents be removed from the record and that too without hearing them was not legally justified and the Courts below, in allowing the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.PC., did not commit any illegality or infirmity. It is further contended that there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, therefore, the present writ petition is not competent.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General has also supported the impugned
5. Have given My anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as for the respondents and have also gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that respondents Nos.3 and 4 are real sister of the petitioner and daughters of Syed Noor Ellahi.
The property left by Syed Noor Elahi at the time of his death devolved upon them and the petitioner, so their names were also entered in the record of Excise and Taxation Department as owners. It is also 'admitted that Mst.Hameeda instituted a suit for partition of the property and recovery of possession while Mst. Jameela instituted a suit for administration of the property, wherein the present petitioner has also been impleaded as one of the defendant and is contesting both the suit and also pleading oral gift in his name. It is also admitted fact that the present . Petitioner brought third suit against both the sisters and all the three suits are still pending. In the present suit out of which this Constitutional petition has arisen, the petitioner has disputed the validity and vires of demand notice issued in the name of legal heirs of the deceased Noor Ellahi. In the above said suit the petitioner amongst other relief has also prayed for declaration to the effect that he is only entitled to pay the tax and his name be entered as sole owner in regard to the property in question, meaning thereby, without impleading all the legal heirs of deceased Noor Ellahi he is desirous to be declared as sole heir which can only be done after deleting other names from P.T. Form No,10 and that too, according to his contention, be done without affording any opportunity of hearing to all other legal heirs. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 being real sisters of petitioner and legal heirs of Noor Ellahi deceased, father of petitioner as well as respondents Nos.3 and 4 were rightly allowed to he impleaded as party by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner's place of sole proprietorship on the basis of. Gift, which is already sub judice in three suits, if allowed arbitrarily, it would amount to ouster his sisters, whose names very much figure in Excise Department record. Since the petitioner by way of challenging demand notice has prayed for relief for causing entry as sole owner in the record of Excise Department. It cannot be said that respondents Nos.3 and 4 would not be affected, if such a relief is granted in favour of the petitioner. The authority referred by the petitioner is distinguishable and does not support his case. There is no cavil with the preposition that the plaintiff is the best Judge of his own interest and if he seeks relief against particular individual and implead that individual as sole defendant, it is not the look-out of the Court or of any other person to see whether somebody else must be allowed to intrude into -the case as a codefendant against the plaintiff's will. But in the present controversy respondents Nos.3 and 4 are not strangers, they being real sisters of petitioner and being legal heirs of deceased Noor Elahi, admittedly their names also figure in the Excise Department, it cannot be said that they are intruders and not necessary and proper party. They would be directly affected in case any finding is recorded by the Trial Court in favour of petitioner as that will directly affect their rights. Finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment, dated 6-12-1997 is eminently just and correct and suffer from no illegality, infirmity or irregularity.
6. In view of the above this writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is dismissed with cost.