P L D 1997 Karachi 442 (PLP)

WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--This order would be read in continuation of the orders dated 15-10-1996 and 24-10-1996. It would seem that respondents Nos. 11 and 12 (plaintiffs) filed the suit for specific performance, against the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 (defendants), from an interlocutory order in which suit this appeal arises. The subject-matter of the suit were tenancy rights in an evacuee trust property and respondents Nos.9 and 10 were defendants Nos.9 and 10 in the said suit. In course of time, after the institution of the suit, the present appellants applied to be joined as co-defendants on the ground that they were transferees of the same rights, under defendants Nos. 1 to 8 in the suit. That application was not resisted either by the two plaintiffs or the defendants before the learned Single Judge. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that the two appellants were not necessary parties. Before us again the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 did not object to the joinder of the appellants-intervenors in the suit but due order of disposal we could not pass earlier because the two plaintiffs had not been served. Now they have been served through their learned counsel appearing in the suit and such service is permissible under Order 43, rule 3 etc. C.P.C. However, Mr. Ali Akbar, their learned counsel, says that he is unable to concede to the grant of this appeal because he has no such instructions "at this stage from the respondents, who are out of Pakistan. Even so, on an earlier date, an order was passed in this appeal that the same can be heard, if necessary, admitted and disposed of at the same time. In the view we take of the matter it seems undeniable that tenancy rights are rights in property. In the peculiar circumstance of such rights under the Evacuee Trust Property Board, the same may even be transferable. As such an alleged transferee of those rights, whatever be the worth of the same, would surely be a necessary or at least a proper party in a suit for specific performance, where the subject-matter of the suit are those very tenancy rights. Plainly a decree in such suit would affect the rights of such a person or alternatively such a person may I be able to frustrate a decree in the suit upon appearing on the scene and agitating his own claim, which in the circumstances could be adverse. Needless to add A that a necessary party is one, who ought to have been joined in the suit and without whose presence no effective decree could be passed therein. Correspondingly, a proper party would be one, whose presence before the Court should be necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Those questions need not necessarily be between the parties already arrayed. Thus, where rights in the subject-matter in ~, the suit already stood assigned or devolved before its institution, the assignee or claimant should ordinarily become relevant. As to devolution or creation of interest pendente lite, Order XXII, rule 10, C.P.C. is specific and the suit may be continued, with the leave of the Court, by or against the person to or upon `,~; whom such interest comes or devolves. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and, having been heard, is also allowed but without recording any consent from the side of Mr. Ali Akbar. Besides, nothing said herein would be treated to endorse the claim of the present appellants in any manner, which shall have to be attended to on its own merit in due course of law. Amended plaint within a month's time, with advance copies to the other learned counsel from the side of the plaintiffs and, thereupon, amended or other written statement accordingly to the rules. Order accordingly.' A.A./B-20/K Order accordingly.