2025 SCMR 515 (PLP)
ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ALL PAKISTAN CLERKS ASSOCIATION through Zilai President Manzoor Ahmed and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 SCMR 515 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irfan Saadat Khan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ALL PAKISTAN CLERKS ASSOCIATION through Zilai President Manzoor Ahmed and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 SCMR 515 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 SCMR 515 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irfan Saadat Khan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 SCMR 515 (PLP) (ABDUL AZIZ and others — Petitioners Versus ALL PAKISTAN CLERKS ASSOCIATION through Zilai President Manzoor Ahmed and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rehmat Ullah Barech, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (through video link from Quetta).
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 26.07.2024 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, passed in C.P. No. 73 of 2023).
O. I, R. 10
Proper and necessary party, impleading of
Principle
Petitioner was aggrieved of impleading respondents as proper and necessary party to the proceedings of suit
Held, that orders passed by High Court and Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of facts of the case
Two Courts below after thrashing out the matter in detail had found that respondents were proper and necessary party
While dealing with applications under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., Court has to exercise its discretion in a liberal manner rather than adopting a narrow or pedantic approach, especially when a party is likely to be affected by any judgment in a proceedings and whose presence would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the matter in accordance with law
Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by High Court
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Syntron Limited v. Huma Ijaz and others 2014 SCMR 531; Province of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Akram and others 2023 SCMR 755; Muhammad Arif and others v. Dirstrict and Session Judge, Sialkot and others 2011 SCMR 1591 and Vidur Impex and Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Tosh Apartments (Pvt) Ltd. and others [Supreme Court of India] 2013 SCMR 602 rel.
Judgment & Decree
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.
An application for impleading the respondent No.1 as a proper and necessary party under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. (petitioner/ intervener) was filed on 10.03.2021 before the trial Court in Suit No.40/2010. The said application was thereafter allowed vide order dated 07.12.2022. Against which an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner. The said appeal was however allowed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 27.12.2022. Thereafter a petition was filed before the High Court bearing C.P. No.73/2023 and the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 26.07.2024 upheld the order of the trial Court and set aside the order of the appellate Court by observing that "admittedly both the Mouza Tegh and Sunni are lying adjacent to each other and the description mentioned in the suit is admittedly of the petitioner/ intervener allotted land"; after finding the respondent No.1 to be a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the said suit.
2. The counsel appearing for the present petitioner stated that the respondents have no right to become a party in the instant suit as no relief has been sought against them in the said suit and hence, they are neither a necessary nor a proper party. He further stated that the respondents have no interest in the suit property and their only claim was that their land is situated in the adjacent area.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have perused the record. We have found that the trial Court and the High Court after examining the matter in detail and the record have found that the present respondent No.1 is a proper and necessary party as their land is lying adjacent to the land of the petitioner and the outcome of the suit, if decided in favour of the present petitioner without hearing them, could adversely effect their rights in respect of the properties claimed by them. We are of the view that the observations made by the High Court and that of the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case as after threshing out the matter in detail they have found out that the respondents are a proper and necessary party. It is a settled preposition of law that while dealing with the applications under Order I Rule 10 the Court has to exercise its discretion in a liberal manner rather than adopting a narrow or pedantic approach, especially when any party is likely to be affected by any judgment in a proceeding and whose presence would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law
1. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court which, is hereby upheld. The present CPLA is found to be without any merit, the same therefore stands dismissed and leave refused. MH/A-5/SC Petition dismissed.