SAID ALAM AND Another vs RAJA SOHRAB KHAN AND 8 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal was directed against a High Court judgment that reversed a trial court's order and permitted pro forma defendants to be transposed as co-plaintiffs. The underlying suit was brought by a reversioner under customary law to contest a land sale made by his father, which had been pre-empted by the petitioner. The plaintiff initially alleged that the other reversioners (the pro forma defendants) had relinquished their claims, but upon their denial, the plaintiff did not object to their transposition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the suit was representative in nature and enured to the benefit of all reversioners. Relying on established precedent, the Court laid down the principle that the transposition of pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs should be allowed when it is necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.
- Under what circumstances should pro forma defendants be transposed as co-plaintiffs in a civil suit?
- Does a suit brought by a reversioner under customary law to contest an alienation of land enure to the benefit of other reversioners?
- Can transposition of parties be allowed to ensure a complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Lahore) made in revisional jurisdiction, whereby in reversal of the order of the trial Court, respondents 2 to 8 were permitted to be transposed as co-plaintiffs with respondent No. 1 (Raja Sohrab Khan) from their original status in the suit as pro forma defendants.
2. The issue arose in a suit brought by respondent No. 1 to contest the sale made by his father Raja Allah Dad Khan to one, Dewan Ali, as being without lawful necessity and thus invalid and ineffective against his reversionary rights under the customary law. The petitioner (Said Alam) had successfully pre-empted that sale and stepped into the shoes of the vendee.
3. As observed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in his impugned order, the plaintiff- respondent suit was in essence of a representative character which enured to the benefit of all the reversioners. The plaintiff had at first alleged that the respondents 2 to 8 had relinquished their claim but on the latter's plea that they had not done so, he did not object to their transposition as co-plaintiffs.
4. The correct legal course to adopt in such a situation was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur v. Rajeswar Prasad Bhagat etc. (AIR1931PC162), wherein it was observed that "course of adding pro forma defendants as co- plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings". This dictum with which we respectfully agree, is fully attracted to the facts of this case.
Cited by 7 cases
- A.M Qureshi vs Deputy Commissioner, Province of Sindh, Karachi 2022 SHC 538
- A. M. Qureshi through legal representative vs Deputy Commissioner, District East, Karachi and others 2023 PLD Sindh 127
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & others 2016 PLJ Islamabad 105
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2016 CLC 343
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. 2015-IHC-165
- Mrs. AFROZ SHAH and others vs SABIR QURESHI and others 2010 PLD Supreme Court 913
- RAUF B. KADRI Versus STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN 2002 CLD 1794