Law:

Section: 3,1

  (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----   -----O. I, r. 3 - Pre emption suit-Vendor not necessary party in such suit.   (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------   -----O. III, r. 1-Provisions give unfettered powers to Pleader acting on behalf of his clients --Powers include power to abandon issues.   Venkata Narasimha v. Bhashyakarlu Naidu I L R 25 Mad. 367; Buta Ram and others v. Sayyad Muhammad A I R 1935 Lah. 71; Sourendra Nath Afitra and others v. Tarubala Dasi A I R 1930 P C 158 and Ramzan and others v. Gopal Das and others A I R 1936 Lah. 199 rel.   (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------   ------S. 115-Pre-emption suit-Defendant abandoning issues and conceding that decree be passed in favour of plaintiff after ascertaining market value of property-Defendants subsequently challenging their admissions and Court re-opening previous proceedings-Order thus passed held, open to revision by High Court.   Date of hearing: 1st March 1965.     JUDGMENT   Nasir Muhammad Khan petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption of agricultural land. It was pleaded in the suit that the property in dispute had, in fact, been sold to defendants Nos. 1 to 7, although the deed had been executed as a deed of exchange. The suit was contested by the alleged vendees defendants Nos. 1 to 7 Defendants Nos. 8 to 15 were the alleged vendors. The case came up before the learned Civil Judge on the 25th of February 1960, when the counsel for the plaintiff made a statement that defendants Nos. 8 to 15 were not necessary parties and their names be struck off from the list of the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 had filed a written statement and had contested the suit. Out of defendants Nos. 8 to 15, Allahdad and Pir Bakhsh, were served personally, while Elahi Bakhsh, Mst. Jindan and Mst. Aisha were served through the male members of their family. As regards Mst. Mehr Khatoon, Mst. Hayat Khatoon and Mst. Rabia Khatoon, the report was that Allahdad alias Ghulam Haider did not accept service on their behalf nor he indicated their address. None of these defendants Nos. 8 to 15 appeared on the 25th of February 1960. In accordance with…