Alam Din petitioner, feeling aggrieved of order, dated 4-1-2002 of learned District Judge Karak, Sassed in Civil Revision No.7 of 2001, confirming order, dated 15-1-2001 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Karak, has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition against Malik Hayat Khan and others, respondents, with prayer that the impugned orders of the learned Courts below, be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and the application of Nasrullah Jan and others, dated 14-11-2000 be dismissed with costs.
2. Shortly narrated the facts of the case are that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner in Suit No. 64/1 of 1981 on 30-11-1981 by the learned Civil Judge Karak. Subsequently respondents Nos. 1 and 2 moved an application on 30-9-1998 under section 12(2), C.P.C assailing the aforesaid decree on a number of grounds. The application was contested by the petitioner, Nasrullah Jan and others then filed an application on 14-11-2000 for impleading them as petitioner in the case instead of respondents. The application having been resisted by the petitioner was allowed through order, dated 15-1-2001 of learned Senior Civil Judge Karak, who ordered that Nasurllah Jan, who was entered as respondent No.28, be made as petitioner in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The petitioner field civil petition before the learned District Judge, Karak which was dismissed through order, dated 4-1-2002 and the impugned order, dated 15-1-2001 was maintained.
3. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders of the Court below on variety of grounds and attempted to argue that the learned Senior Civil Judge has illegally impleaded Nasrullah Jan as petitioner in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Although, original application was submitted by respondent No. 1 and 2 and Nasarullah Jan was made as respondent No.28 who was already proceeded against ex parte vide order, dated 27-9-2000. The learned counsel added that per order, dated 15-1-2001 the learned Civil Judge had ordered that Nasrullah Jan alone be impleaded but more than 50 persons were impleaded as petitioner contrary to the aforesaid order. Additionally, he urged that the decree in dispute was passed in the year 1981 and after lapse of such a long time the respondents could not be impleaded as petitioners in application under section 12(2), C. P. C. The impleadment is totally unwarranted and has opened flood gates for further litigation.
4. Order I, C.P.C. Deals with the joinder, non joinder and misjoinder or parties. Parties are persons whose names appear on the record of the suit as plaintiff or defendant though they may have been introduced as parties at any stage. A person against whom no relief is asked for is not necessarily a wrong party but may be a proper party. A suit cannot proceed in the absence of necessary party. Persons whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, are proper parties.
Parties can be added or struck out by the Court where the matter is pending at any stage during pendency of the suit.
5. Powers of High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction are not analogous' to those exercised by it in appeal. High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction which can only be exercised if the lower Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted without jurisdiction.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the material on file, we find that the impugned orders are reasonable and by no stretch of imagination they even be said to be arbitrary or, fanciful. A perusal of impugned order would reveal that nothing was produced on record by the petitioner in support of his contention which have been raised into this writ petition.
7. It needs no reiteration that provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Vest ample powers in a Court to see to it that proper parties are brought before it. Rule 10(2), C.P.C. Lays down that the Court may at any stage of proceedings either upon or without application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court thinks just, that the name of any party improperly joined whether as petitioner or defendant, be struck out and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate on and settle all the questions involved in the suit be added. In the instant case concurrent decision of the Courts below is in consonance with law and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the petitioner. Both orders have been made in order to save the parties from multiplicity of suit. The discretion has been properly exercised and we do not feel inclined to exercise our Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is not maintainable. The same is dismissed as such in limine. The listed application also meets the same fate.