Mst. NAFISA RAZI Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Civil Transfer Application No. 63 of 2025, decided on 18th May, 2026.

Authored by Zafar Ahmed Rajput. Result: Application dismissed.

Summary

This civil transfer application was filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an applicant seeking the transfer of a civil suit pending before the Court of the XIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-Central, to the Court of the XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East, to be heard alongside her pending administration suits. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the application, arguing that the applicant was merely an intervenor whose application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 remained pending, and thus she was not a party to the suit. The High Court considered whether a person whose application for impleadment is pending qualifies as a 'party' entitled to seek transfer under Section 24. Dismissing the application, the Court held that an applicant under Order I Rule 10 cannot be regarded as a party until an order is passed adding them to the proceedings. Consequently, a non-party lacks locus standi to maintain a transfer application under Section 24.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does a person who has applied for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a 'party' within the meaning of Section 24 before that application is allowed?
Can a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained by a person who is not named as a plaintiff or defendant on the record of the suit?
Does the term 'party' under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 encompass a mere intervenor or prospective party?

Laws & provisions referred

civil transfer applicationSection 24 CPCOrder I Rule 10addition of partieslocus standiintervenortransfer of civil suit

ORDER

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, CJ.--- Through the instant Civil Transfer Application, filed under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ( C.P.C. ), applicant, Mst. Nafisa Razi, through her attorney/husband Razi Farooqi, seeks transfer of Civil Suit No.1330/2025 (Old H.C. Suit No.574/ 1996) [Re: Messrs Munawar and Company Pvt. Ltd. v. KDA and others ] (the subject Suit ) from the Court of XIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-Central (the Trial Court ) to the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East.

2.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant's suits for administration and recovery of rent and profits of the movable and immovable properties owned by her deceased father, Hafiz Munawar, who died on 15.05.1986, and her mother, Hajiani Saleha Begum, who died on 16.07.2004, being Civil Suit Nos. 2626/2024 and 6826/2025 ( old H.C. Suit No.188/2012 ), are pending adjudication before the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East. He further contends that the said civil suits of the applicant are primarily for the purpose of administration of the assets/properties of her parents; therefore, the subject Suit should also be transferred from the Trial Court to the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East for a harmonious decision with respect to the shares of the legal heirs of the said deceased. He also contends that the applicant is a party in the subject Suit, as she has filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. for her addition as the plaintiff. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case of Diwan Azmat Said Muhammad v. Haji Bakhtiar Said Muhammad and another (PLJ 1996 Lahore 1169) , wherein it has been held that the term party used in section 24 of the C.P.C. is not to be limited to person named in title of the suit or appeal but it would include person, who has made an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.

3.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 maintains that the applicant is merely an intervenor in the subject Suit and her application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. has yet not been granted by the Trial Court; hence, she has no locus standi to maintain the instant application, as she is not a party to the subject Suit. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Sindh Industrial Trading Estates through its Secretary, Karachi v. Mst. Qamar Hilal and 5 others (2001 SCMR 1680) . He further maintains that even the defendants in the subject Suit are not parties to the suits filed by the applicant, and since the subject Suit has a distinct cause of action, having no nexus with the suits filed by the applicant, it cannot be transferred to the Court of XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East.

4.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the rest of the respondents have adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

5.Heard. Record perused.

6.Section 24, C.P.C. reads as under: -

General power of transfer and withdrawal. (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage

(a)transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or in any Court subordinate to it, and

(b)withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it, and

(i)try or dispose of the same; or

(ii)transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii)re-transfer the same for trial or disposals to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

(2)----------------------------------

(3)----------------------------------

(4)----------------------------------

(Emphasis supplied)

7.It may be observed that section 24 of the C.P.C. confers upon the District and the High Court the general power to transfer, withdraw and re-transfer at any stage, a pending suit, appeal or other proceedings either suo motu or upon application by a party . In terms of Order I, rules 1 and 3, C.P.C., a party is the person whose name appears on the record of the suit as the plaintiff or the defendant. As elaborated in the case of Sindh Industrial Trading Estates (supra), the word party in Corpus Juris Secundum has been defined as follows: -

"With reference to judicial proceedings, the word 'party' is generally used as meaning one of two opposing litigants, he or they by or against whom a suit is brought, whether at law, or in equity, the plaintiff or defendant, whether natural or legal persons."

Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines the word "party" as follows:--

"A person who had engaged in a transaction or made an agreement. One of the opposing litigants in a judicial proceeding-- a person seeking to establish a right or one upon whom it is sought to impose a corresponding duty or liability, including any person by whom or against whom a suit, either at law or in equity, is brought. For the purposes of a right to appeal, persons named as parties in the original pleadings and persons who subsequently come or are brought into the action for the purpose of seeking relief or of being subjected to relief..."

As such, in a legal parlance and juristic context, the word party " refers to any individual, business, corporation, or government entity directly related to the party in the proceedings.

8.In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the applicant is not a party to the subject Suit. She has merely filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. in the subject Suit, which application is still pending adjudication. Sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C., reads as under:-

(2)Court may strike out or add parties. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(Emphasis supplied)

9.It can be gathered from the above, that the sub-rule (2) (ibid) permits the striking out of a party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, and addition of a person as plaintiff or defendant. As such, the person who has applied to the Court to become party cannot be regarded as a party unless an order is passed by the Court allowing the request for his addition as a party to the suit/proceedings. Hence, a person who is not a party to the suit/proceedings cannot maintain a transfer application.

10.So far the dictum laid down in the case of Diwan Azmat Said Muhammad (supra) , cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, is concerned, I beg to differ on the premises that the term parties used in section 24 of the C.P.C. cannot be equated with persons and taken into consideration in isolation but with the conjunction of Order I, rules 1, 3 and 10(2) of the C.P.C. It may be observed that the legal terms must indeed be interpreted in the exact statutory context of the law. The Courts strictly apply definitions, scope and judicial interpretation based on the specific provision/section/order of the Act, where the term appears, ensuring that a term s legal meaning aligns with legislative intent.

11.In view of the above facts, discussion and considering the legal provisions of law, the instant Civil Transfer Application is dismissed, accordingly, along with the pending application.

MH/N-3/Sindh Application dismissed.

Judges on this bench

Zafar Ahmed Rajput323 judgments