' The petitioner is serving as Assistant Director in the F.I.A. (BS-17) under the Interior Division,, Islamabad, Government of Pakistan. He is in occupation of House No,17/B, Wafaqi Colony, Lahore as its allottee. Previous to that, the aforesaid house was in possession of his mother who was also a Government employee and was its allottee. On her retirement, the house in question was allotted to the petitioner subject to the availability of a house of his entitlement. In the meantime, the house in question was allotted to Yasir Pirzada, Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, Lahore i,e,, respondent No,2. The petitioner filed a civil suit to challenge the aforesaid allotment in favour of respondent No,2. That suit was later on withdrawn with the permission to bring a fresh suit. In the aforesaid suit, respondent No,2 was made as a defendant but in the subsequent suit, respondent No,2 was excluded. Thereupon, respondent No,2 filed a petition under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., in the Court below for impleading him as a party to the suit. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide its order, dated 27-5-1999. A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order which came up for hearing before Ch. Saeed Ahmad, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore and the same was also dismissed vide order, dated 9-6-1999. Hence this writ petition is filed by the petitioner to impugn both the orders.
2. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is bona fide allottee of the house in question and that respondent No,2 had no right to seek allotment of the same house which stood allotted to him. In this regard, it was contended that respondent No,2 allegedly got the allotment in his favour by manipulating and maneuvering in dubious manner and after his malicious connivance with respondent No,4 i,e, the Joint Estate Officer, Lahore. It was, therefore, contended that respondent No,2 was not a necessary party for the disposal of the suit below and as such, the learned Trial Court fell in error to allow him to be impleaded as a party. The Revisional Court also allegedly illegally upheld the order passed by the Trial Court without examining the fact that respondent No,2 had no right for allotment of ?He house which already stood allotted to the petitioner. .
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the points raised above and have also gone through the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that in the earlier suit, the petitioner had impleaded respondent No,2 as a defendant but that suit was withdrawn and the present suit was filed in which respondent No,2 was omitted to be impleaded as defendant. This shows that the petitioner did not act conscientiously to omit respondent No,2 to be impleaded as defendant in the subsequent suit although it was considered necessary to implead him in the previous suit. Even on merits, respondent No,2 claims to be an allottee of the house in question and as such he would be deemed to be a necessary party because any order passed in his absence in the 'Court below would prejudice his right of allotment vis-a-vis possession to the house. As such, the Courts below have rightly concluded that respondent No,2 is a necessary party., and that he has been rightly allowed to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The main case is yet pending and is not 'finally decided between the parties in respect of right of allotment qua the house in question. In such agitation the matter has not yet attained finality as the same is sub judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In that event also, the writ petition would not be competent. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
C.M. No,1 of 1999 and C.M. No,2 of 19'2
4. Since the main petition has been dismissed. Therefore, these petitions become infructuous and are also dismissed.