P L D 1967 Karachi 711 (PLP)

O. I, r. 10‑Addition of parties to suit‑Court competent to order at any stage of suit‑-Mere delay in making application for being added as plaintiff

No ground for rejection of prayer. The prayer of a number of persons for being added as plaintiffs was challenged on the ground that it suffered from laches as it was made four years after the institution of the suit. The High Court held that this by itself is not a good ground under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. to reject applications of this nature. The Court is empowered under this provision to add any person as plaintiff or defendant in the suit at any stage of the suit and even in appeals. S. Abbas Zia for Applicants. Mohan Lal, A. C. Joshi, Dingomal and Sulleman Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December 1966. This revision application seeks to challenge the order by which respondents Nos. 7 to 1 I were added as. plaintiffs in Suit No. 119 of 1962, brought by the applicants in the Court of the District Judge, Karachi, under section 92, C. P. C: in respect of the properties of Swami Narian Temple Trust, Karachi. The impugned order was made on 24‑2‑1966 on the application made in December 1965 by these respondents.

2. The contention of Mr. Abbas Zia, the learned Advocate for the applicants, is that sanction of the Advocate‑General for institution of the suit under section 92 C. P. C., was given only to the present applicant, and in the absence of a fresh sanction, the respondents Nos. 7 to 11 could not be added as plaintiffs in the suit. I am unable to accept this argument. A suit validly instituted under section 92 of the Code with the consent of the Advocate‑General, is subject to all the incidents affecting suits, and this would include the power of the Court to add necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication of the disputes in the suit. I think this principle is in accord with the rule laid down in the judgment of the Privy Council in Mst. Ali Begum and others v. Badrul Islam and others (AIR 1938 P C 184), in which it was held that consent in writing of the Advocate‑General .under section 92, C. P. C. is a condition of the valid institution of a suit, and has no reference to any other stage in the suit. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned order, which was made under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C., the provisions of which enable the Court to exercise the power to strike out any person from, or add any party to, the suit at any time subsequent to the institution of the suit.

3. Reference in this connection may also be made to the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Gobinda Chandra Ghosh v. Abdul Majid Ostagar and others (A I R 1944 Cal: 163), where it was held that once a suit is validly commenced after obtaining sanction under section 92, no fresh sanction is necessary at a further stage of the suit if the amendment of the plaint or the addition of a new party does not alter the nature of the claim in the suit. The same view was taken by the High Court of East Punjab in kidar Nath Datt and others v. Kishan Das Bairagi and others (A I R 1957 Pb. 106). In both these cases, it was observed that nature of the claim in the suit would be altered if the amendment of the plaint or addition of a new party results in substitution of a totally different causes of action in the suit. In. the present case, the addition of respondents Nos. 7 to 11 as plaintiff's does not in any way enlarge the scope of the suit. The cause of action remains the same, namely, administration of the Swami Narian Temple estate on the ground that the respondent No. 1, the Manager of the Trust, was an Indian National and was permanently resident in India, and that respondent No. 2 had the Management of the Trust properties only as respondent No. 1's attorney. This cause of action has not in any way been altered by the addition as plaintiffs of respondents Nos. 7 to 11, whose presence in the proceeding was found necessary and proper by the District Judge, as these persons are members of the Swami Narian Sect and there were allegations that the appellant No. 1 was not taking proper interest in the conduct of the suit. In my opinion, these were good reasons for making the impugned order.

4. It was next contended that the application of the respondents Nos. 7 to 11 for being added as plaintiffs in the suit suffered from laches, as it was made four years after tile institution of the suit. This by itself is not a good ground under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. to reject applications of this nature. The Court is empowered under this provision to add any person as plaintiff or defendant in the suit at any stage of the suit and even in appeal. The delay can be explained by the fact that the application became necessary only when it was found that the applicant No. 1, who had the active conduct of the suit, was not diligent in pursuing the proceedings and, according to the findings of the learned District Judge, there were serious allegations against this applicant with regard to his attitude towards other members of the Swami Narian Sect.

5. For these reasons, I consider the revision application without any merit and accordingly dismiss the same with costs: K. B. A. Petition dismissed.