Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 96 , 115

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.1, R.10---Suit for partition of property ---Impleading of parties---Any person claiming a share in suit for partition of immovable property based on a claim of co-sharership, would be entitled to be joined as a necessary party. Noor Muhammad v. Zain-ul-Abideen A I R 1940 All. 399 and Firdousi Begum v. Next of Kin P L D 1967 Kar. 439 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.1, R.10---Suit for partition ---Impleading of parties---In a suit for partition, all heirs and other persons including intervenors claiming a right or interest in joint property, should necessarily and properly be joined as party to suit. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 96, 115 and 0.1, Rr.3, 10---Appeal, revision---Case decided-- Maintainability of---Order passed under 0.1, Rule 3, C.P.C. not being appealable, appeal lodged before Appellate Court below against order of Trial Court was liable to be dismissed being incompetent---Decision on that application not amounting to `case decided' revision against order of Appellate Court below was not competent. Khurshid Begum v. Malku 1983 S C M R 534 ref. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi for. Petitioner.. ORDER In a suit for partition of a house brought by Mst. Kausar Bibi petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, Mst. Allah Wasai and others, respondents 3 to 7, moved an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to the trial Court for being joined as necessary parties on the ground that they were co-sharers therein. The application was resisted with vehemence by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge, however, while accepting the application, ordered the impleadment of the respondents aforesaid as defendants vide her order dated 23-11--1988. Aggrieved by this .order, Mst. Kausar Bibi, plaintiff, preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, D.I. Khan, who too dismissed it on 7-9-1989. Hence this petition in revision by Mst. Kausar Bibi petitioner. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has questioned the impleadment of respondents 3 to 7 on the ground that the petitioner's suit does not relate to any inter se controvery between the heirs of Maula Dad deceased,…