' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15-6-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby Civil Revision No,1181/D of 1996 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession on the averment that he is the owner of the agricultural land, out of which petitioners/defendants have occupied seven or eight Marlas of land comprising Khasra Nos.63/15, 1, 2, 63/25 about five years ago and had raised Katcha construction over there. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that they were in possession since 1947 as such they have become owners by way of adverse possession.
3. Learned trial Court after observing codal formalities vide judgment/decree dated 26-6-1993 dismissed the suit holding the same as bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Respondent/plaintiff being aggrieved from the said judgment/decree preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 2nd November, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants preferred civil revision before learned LahoreHigh Court which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment as such instant petition for leave to have been filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants contended that the suit of the petitioners was dismissed for want of impleading all the legal heirs of Abdul Sattar deceased who according to him are in possession of the suit-land, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in non-suiting the respondent/plaintiff.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the caveator stated that under Order 1, rule 9, C.P.C. The plaint cannot be rejected for misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the impugned judgment carefully. A perusal whereof indicates that the dispute rests between the petitioners and respondent Noor Muhammad. As far as other persons being the legal heirs of Abdul Sattar are concerned they have no interest in the property in dispute, therefore, non-joining them as party was not fatal for the suit filed by the plaintiff. Besides it two persons namely Ibrahim son of Rahim and Khan Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad were joined as co-plaintiffs but their names were deleted by learned Appellate Court vide order dated 15-3-1990. This order has attained finality as the same was not challenged by the petitioners. Thus contest remains only between petitioners/defendants and Noor Muhammad and the same was only with regard to the land in his possession. It may also be noted that Order 1, rule 9 provides that no suit shall be defeated by reasons of misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties and the Court may deal in every suit with the matter in controversy so far as it relates to the rights and interest of the parties actually before it is concerned.
8. We may also observe that learned High Court has not only decided the question relating to non- joinder of necessary parties but, has also decided the case on merits after taking into consideration the evidence available on record. Therefore, for this reason as well impugned judgment being unexceptionable calls for no interference by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Leave, refused.