MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 17.1.1994 respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the remaining respondents seeking separate possession by partition of the suit land mentioned in the plaint to the extent of 16 Marlas. The suit was contested by the said defendants. A preliminary decree was passed on 24.4.1997. The defendant filed a first appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Attock, on 30.10.1997.
2. On 21.11.1997 the present petitioners filed an application under Section 12(2), CPC. The case set-up in the application was that their late father Manzoor Elahi inherited about 6 Marlas of land from the estate of Mst. Noor Shan vide mutation No. 691 on 17.3.1992. The said Manzoor Elahi died and the petitioners are his successor-in-interest. Now these facts were not denied in reply to the said application. However, it was urged that the application has been got filed by the defendants in the case after the decision of the appeal against them. This application was tried by the learned District Judge, Attock, who dismissed the same on 20.7.1999.
3. Sardar Tariq Anees, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no denial and in fact it is finding of the learned District Judge that the petitioner are co-sharer in the suit land, however, instead of impleading them, he proceeded to dismiss the application. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents states that he has no objection in case the petitioners are allowed to join proceedings as the final decree is yet to be drawn.
4. I have examined the available records. Now I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no denial that the petitioners are co-share to the extent of land inherited by their father Manzhoor Elahi from Mst. Noor Shan. This in fact is the finding of the learned District Judge, Attock, himself. However, through a process of reasoning not intelligible application has been dismissed.
5. Now this is a partition suit. So long the land remained joint and final decree is drawn-up, any necessary party being vested with title or interest in the land can be impleaded. Now I may note here that the evidence has been recorded in the course of this application and there is no denial by the petitioners that the parties already on record are also co-sharer.
6. In this view of the matter I allow this civil revision and set aside the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Attock, dated 20.7.1999. Inasmuch as whereas commission of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation has not been established, yet the petitioners are necessary party to these proceedings. They are impleaded as such in the suit and they will be entitled to join the proceedings to be conducted before the learned Trial Court for preparation of the final decree.
Copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Trial Court. .