1972 PLP 102 (SCMR)
BEGUM MEHRUNNISA‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LID.
| Citation | 1972 PLP 102 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BEGUM MEHRUNNISA‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LID. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 102 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 102 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 102 (SCMR) (BEGUM MEHRUNNISA‑Petitioner Versus NATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LID.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Ahmed Fazeel, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmed Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th February 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 27th August 1971, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 126 of 1971). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10‑Parties to suit‑Impleading nr refusing to implead party to a suit‑Court exercises its discretion in matter‑Suit for specific performance of contract between A and B compromised‑Person not party to suit thereafter applying for being impleaded as part v‑Court, held, justified in refusing to implead such person at that stage.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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. 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." 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. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.