' This order shall dispose of another Writ Petition No, 3153 of 1978, which raises the same question of law.
2. The petitioner filed a suit challenging the sale-deed on the ground that it had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation. Respondents 1 and 2 who have already filed a suit for pre-emption, on the basis of the same deed, applied to be impleaded as a party. The trial Court rejected their application but the learned Additional District Judge, exercising his revisional power, allowed them to be impleaded as defendants. The present petition has been filed against that order.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. The respondents are neither proper nor necessary party. This contention, however, is not correct It is admitted by the learned counsel that the very effect of the decree of the petitioner's suit will be that the pre- emption suit filed by the respondents shall fail. The petitioner, therefore, wants to pull the carpet under the respondents' feet without notice A to them. In fact it amounts to knocking the bottom of the respondents' suit off ex parte. In the view of the matter, the respondents have a right to be heard and, therefore, they were rightly impleaded as party in view of Sankaralinga Nadan v.
Rajeswa ra Dorai (1). One of the tests in such cases is that the Court has the jurisdiction to add as defendant if it is shown that the decree will affect or curtail the enjoyment of a legal right of the intervener. Reference be made to Anion v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. (2).
4. The contention of the learned counsel, that as the petitioner is claiming no relief against the respondents they could not be impleaded, is not correct in view of the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Ishaq v. Mst. Jamila Begum (3). Admittedly the inclusion of the respondents in the suit as a party shall prevent unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and, therefore, the impugned order is quite valid in the light of the rule laid down by this Court in State v. Ghulam Jaffar (4).
5. The addition of a party is a discretionary act as observed in Mien Abdul Waheed v. Mst. Amtul Hamid (5) and interference by this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction in such a case can be attracted only if it is B shown that the discretion had been abused or exercised arbitrarily or fancifully. None of the factors are there, Such orders cannot be set aside even in revisional jurisdiction as held in Abdul Rauf v. Mst. Bibi Rehana (6).
' This petition thus has no merit and is dismissed in limine.