Respondents Nos.3 and 4, herein, had filed a suit for administration of the left-over of Khurshid Alain, deceased, who died issueless. In the said suit the petitioner, herein, made an application for being impleaded as party that he was husband of Mst. Shama, the adopted daughter of deceased Khurshid Alain. It was the case of the petitioner that he had invested some money in the business of Khurshid A lam, deceased and a joint account was opened which was being operated jointly. He also described certain properties in the application which, according to him, were not owned by Khurshid Alain deceased. The application was contested by the contesting respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22-3-1995 allowed him to be impleaded as party. This order was challenged by respondents Nos.3 and 4, the plaintiffs in the suit, by filing a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 18-10-1995. This is a petition against the same.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a suit for administration of the property of deceased Khurshid Alain in which the petitioner applied for being impleaded on account .Of his interest and entitlement as claimed and was a necessary party in the same, the order passed by the learned trial Court was in accordance with law which has been interfered with in revision by the learned Additional District Judge on an -erroneous view of the matter.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the petitioner was not impleaded as party in the Proceedings for grant of succession certificate thus, he is not entitled to be impleaded in the suit also and that the claim of the petitioner is entirely baseless, as such the revisional Court acted legally in the matter.
4. It was a suit for administration. The scope- and object of such a suit was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Syed Mehdi Hussain Shah v. Mst. Shadoo Bibi and others PLD 1962 SC 291 and it was observed as follows:----- "This means that the Court will assume the functions of an administration, it will realize the assets, will discharge the debts and legacies, will take an account of the income of the property and will distribute the assets amongst those entitled to it. That this is the relief to be granted appears also from 41 in Appendix A, Schedule I to the Civil Procedure Code wherein is stated the form of the decree which is to be granted in such suit. It is clear that for distributingthe estate of the deceased among those entitled to it the Court has to find out who the persons entitled are and, therefore, it will be proper to join in the suit all those persons who claim to be so entitled. According to Order I, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code any persons whose presence is 'necessary' in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit' may be added as a party to the suit. There should be no objection to a plaintiff joining in an administration suit all those who claim to be entitled to a share in the property of the deceased and whose claim he wants to be adjudicated upon."
5. The petitioner had come out with a certain claim which could only be adjudicated upon if he was before the Court as a party and allowed opportunity to substantiate his claim. His application was rightly allowed by the learned trial Court to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, whereas the learned Additional District Judge has erred in law in rejecting his application and setting aside the order of the trial Court. He cannot be non-suited simply for the reason that his application for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate had been disallowed. The scope of the two proceedings is quite distinct as those are proceedings of summary nature, whereas it is a regular suit in which the claims of the respective claimants/contestants are to be decided on the basis of the material brought on record in support of their respective pleas. In this e view of the matter, order of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained and is declared as illegal.
6. Both the learned counsel are of the view that the matter has remained pending before the trial Court for fairly a long time and thus urged for a direction to the learned trial Court for decision of the case expeditiously. The request is reasonable. Such like matters should receive somewhat preferential treatment by the Courts as delay in decision results in deprivation to the rightful claimants of their due share in the left-over of the deceased. Accordingly, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall take steps for completion of the trial and conclusion of the same before 31- 5-2001.
This petition is accepted and is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.