Law:

Section:

The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that one Niaz Hussain died issueless without any widow; after his death, the mutation of inheritance was got attested in the name of his son (Bashir Hussain) on 10-11-1973. Zaheer Hussain respondent No.4, filed a suit for declaration being collateral of late Niaz Hussain; the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise in favour of Zaheer Hussain respondent No.4 by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 10-4-1979. Respondent No.4, subsequently after obtaining decree from the competent, Court executed Agreement to sell with the present petitioners. Respondent No.4 did not ready to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners were constrained to file suit for specific performance, against respondent No.4, which was decreed by the Trial Court on the basis of the compromise vide judgment and decree dated 26-5-1980. Respondent No.3 filed an, application under section 12(2), C.P.C., for setting aside the consent decree between Zaheer Hussain and Bashir Hussain, dated 10-4-1979. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., for impleading them as respondents as the land in question was in their possession and, the mutation was also sanctioned in favour of' them on the basis of the subsequent decree dated 26-5-1980. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order, dated 1-12-1996. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed revision petition before the learned District Judge, Multan, who entrusted the same to learned A.D.J. and the same was dismissed vide order, dated 1-3-1997; hence the present writ petition.   The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are not only proper party but also they are necessary party as the petitioners, after obtaining decree in their favour on 26-5-1980; the land in question is still in their possession and the mutation was sanctioned in their favour. Respondent No.3 did not implead them as party malafidely but both the Courts below did not take into consideration, the subsequent events after the decree passed by the Trial Court on 10-4-1979. He further urged that it is…