Haji ABDULLAH vs Haji DOST MUHAMMAD And 3 Other
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, which had challenged the trial court's order allowing the first respondent's application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a party in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the first respondent qualified as a necessary or proper party to be joined in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that although the first respondent was not a necessary party, he was a proper party for the effective determination of the matters in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, given his categorical claim to the suit property and the admissions made in the plaint. The Court laid down the principle that a person laying a bona fide claim to the subject matter of a suit can be joined as a proper party to ensure complete and effective adjudication and prevent multiple legal actions.
- Whether a person laying a claim to the suit property can be impleaded as a proper party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an intervenor who is not a necessary party still entitled to be joined as a proper party for the effective determination of the suit?
- Does the inclusion of a proper party help in avoiding the multiplicity of proceedings in a civil suit?
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner brought a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of the District Judge, Quetta impleading respondents Nos. 2 to 4 alone. The first respondent moved an application under Order I rule 10, C.P.C., in the suit on 1-10-1985 for impleading him as a party to the suit. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 13-11-1986 by a short order. This order was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the learned High Court which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the learned trial Court dated 13-11-1986 did not contain any reasons and it was not inquired into whether the intervenor was at all a necessary or a proper party to the suit. However, the learned High Court had the occasion to go into the question in detail and a finding has been recorded that although the respondent No.1 was not a necessary party, yet on account of his categorical claim to the suit property, he was a proper party for being impleaded in the suit for effective determination of the points involved in the matter, apart from avoiding any multiplicity of the proceedings. Here it may be mentioned that in the plaint itself the petitioner had mentioned that the respondent Haji Dost Muhammad had made a claim in respect of the disputed karez on 17-8-1985 whereupon the matter was referred by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar, Dalbandin and it was found that the said respondent had no right in the property and, it at all, he should approach the Civil Court.
Such averment in the plaint itself shows that the first respondent was laying a claim and he was also directed to approach the Civil Court. Besides, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no counter---affidavit to the intervenor's application was filed in the trial Court. The joining of the intervenor in the circumstances as a proper party was, therefore, amply justified and findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot, therefore, be said that the discretion was not rightly exercised in the case. The petition, therefore, has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 6 cases
- JAMIA MASJID HANFIA ATTOCK Versus Mst. SURRAYA BIBI 2026 CLC 109
- KHURSHID ASHRAF and 3 others vs AFTAB ASHRAF and another 2018 PLJ Quetta 23
- KHURSHID ASHRAF through Attorney and 3 others vs AFTAB ASHRAF and another 2018 PLJ Quetta 23, 2018 MLD 65
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs NAZEER and 7 others 2016 CLC 645
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAN and others Versus FALAK SHER 2007 SCMR 882
- Jamia Masjid Hanfia Attock Through President Rashid Rehman vs Mst. 2025 LHC 4343