Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 97

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 97---Preliminary decree---Defendant in a suit for partition made statement that shares as mentioned in plaint by plaintiff were correct and that he had no objection if a preliminary decree was passed accordingly---Court after receiving report of Local Commissioner duly appointed and after considering objections against that report, passed preliminary decree without disturbing shares of parties concerned already fixed in property in dispute-- Preliminary decree which was not challenged by defendant and had attained finality, could not be challenged while challenging final decree. Dr. Munawar Ali Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1976 SCMR 54 and Hafiz Mujtaba Ahmad v. Mst. Aziz Fatima PLD 1981 Lah. 583 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (v of 19118) ----Ss. 97 & 115---Revision petition. wherein preliminary and final decree passed by Court  below  was  challenged,  was  riled  without  impleading  necessary parties---Effect---Petitioner ought to have impleaded all persons as respondents who could be adversely affected in case of acceptance of revision petition. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Ghulam and others PLD 1982 SC 46 and Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13 others PLD 1987 Lah. 387 ref. M.A. Ghani for Petitioner. Faruq Hussain Naqvi for Respondents, Date of hearing 21st February, 1993. JUDGMENT This revision petition arises out of a suit for partition filed by respondent No. 1 on 27-9-1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Faisalabad. The suit was resisted by the   petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 8 who filed their written statement in the Court. However, on 17-7-1976, learned counsel for the defendants made a statement that the defendants had accepted the shares as claimed in the suit. Accordingly a preliminary decree was passed on the same day i.e. 17-7-1976. Ghulam Rasool filed an application on 22-9-1976 stating therein that he had never instructed his counsel to make the statement admitting the shares mentioned in the plaint to be correct. However, subsequently, the Court took proceedings for the purposes of passing a final decree and appointed a…