KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE AND 3
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the decision of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the District Judge's order refusing to implead the petitioner as a party to an appeal. The core legal question is whether a person in possession of a part of the suit land is a necessary party to an appeal arising out of temporary injunction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly refused to implead the petitioner in the appellate proceedings concerning a temporary injunction, as the appellate court could effectively adjudicate the matter without him, noting that his separate application to be impleaded as a party before the trial court was still pending adjudication. The key principle laid down is that a party whose possession is not affected by a temporary injunction and whose application to be impleaded is pending before the trial court is not a necessary party to an interlocutory appeal arising from such injunction proceedings.
- Is a person in possession of a part of the suit land a necessary party in an appeal arising out of an application for a temporary injunction?
- Can an appellate court effectually adjudicate upon a temporary injunction matter without adding a third party whose pending application for impleadment is before the trial court?
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition (C. R. No. 462 of 1977) . And upholding the order of the District Judge, refusing to implead him as a party to the appeal.
2. Before us the petitioner has reiterated the contention raised before the Courts below and has also submitted that as he was in possession of a part of the suit land, he was a necessary party in appeal before the District Judge.
3. On the question of the petitioner's possession of Khasra No. 2276, respondent No. 4 has not denied that he was in possession of some part of it, but whether this circumstance entitled the petitioner to be impleaded as a party in the suit has still to be gone into by the trial Court. The matter in appeal before the District Judge arose out of the decision on the application for temporary injunction, and although it is not clear from the record before us what precise relief was sought by the plaintiff in it, it seems he wanted some kind of stay order against his own dispossession. The grant or refusal of the stay order would not affect the petitioner or interfere with his possession because according to him he already has in his favour a decree qua his dispossession. His application for being impleaded as a party before the trial Court is pending arid as observed by the Courts below is still to be adjudicated upon. If the petitioner succeeds in his said application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., he can contest the suit in the capacity of defendant before the trial Court.
4. We agree with the view taken by the High Court and the District Judge that the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in appeal before the latter in a proceeding arising out of a decision on an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 could not be accepted as the appellate Court was in a position, notwithstanding the petitioner, to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question in appeal.
5. This petition has no force and is dismissed.