BEGUM MEHRUNNISA vs NATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LID. KARACHI AND 2
This petition for special leave arises from an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as a party in a specific performance suit. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing to implead a partner in a suit for specific performance of partnership property when a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts has already been passed in a separate partnership suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion lawfully and reasonably, as the petitioner was not a party to the specific performance contract and her interests would not be prejudiced by the refusal, thereby preventing unnecessary prolongation and complication of proceedings. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by lower courts under Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the considerations are irrelevant or result in a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether a third party can be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after a compromise has been reached in a specific performance suit?
- Is the discretion exercised by a High Court under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 open to interference by the Supreme Court when based on reasonable considerations?
- Does the refusal to implead a partner in a specific performance suit regarding partnership property materially affect their pending rendition of accounts suit?
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave is from an order of the High "Court of Sind & Baluchistan, refusing the petitioner's application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. It appears that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 entered into partnership on 27-2-1952 for the purpose of purchasing lands and selling them and sharing the benefits arising out of such transactions. In the year 1968 respondent No. 3, by two contracts agreed to sell to respondents Nos.
3. 1 and 2 28 acres of land out of 68 acres of land purchased by the said partnership firm. Disputes, however, arose between the two partners, and a suit for rendition of accounts was filed by the petitioner on 10-8-1970. A preliminary decree was passed and a Commissioner was appointed to take accounts. During the pendency of this suit respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit against respondent No. 3 alone for specific performance of the said two contracts. On 2-2-1971 the suit for specific performance of the contracts was compromised between the parties. On 24-5-1971 the peti--tioner applied under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. For being impleaded as a party but the application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioner then filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed with the following observations: "It is true that the power of the Court is not curtailed by virtue of the passing of a preliminary decree but the considera--tions are the propriety and justice of the case in which such an application is made. We do not think that the applicant is likely to suffer if she is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings at this stage and by not allowing her to be impleaded at this stage will save the proceedings from being unnecessarily prolonged and complicated."
4. The Court exercises a discretion under Order I, rule 10 of the Code. The considerations that weighed with the High Court in refusing to implead the petitioner were relevant and reasonable. The petitioner was not a party to the suit for specific performance, and the refusal to implead her at this stage did not affect her interest.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus SNGPL 2018 CLC 1146
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM SIDDIQUI vs BACHUBAI EDULJEE DINSHAW RELIEF FUND 2018 CLC 1487
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI And 5 OTHER 1999 CLC 2000
- Mat. HAMIDA FIDA HUSSAIN KHOJA and another vs Mat. ANEES IQBAL 1986 MLD 443
- ALLAH RAKHA vs COL. ABDUL GHAFOOR 1978 PLD Lahore 1364