1993 PLP 1207 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑0.1, R.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (P?73), Art.199‑‑‑Official defendant, against whom no relief had been claimed in suit was struck off as a party from suit, on the ground that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party‑‑ Plaintiff instead of challenging such order any further, filed application for impleading said official as defendant which was rejected and such order was upheld in revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Trial Court having struck off official defendant's name from suit, application for impleading him again, was not competent‑‑ Neither any relief had been claimed against official defendant nor he was shown to have any interest in property in question‑‑‑Courts below having found that such official defendant was neither a proper nor a necessary party, such view could not be deemed to be without lawful authority so as to attract interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. M.R. Jan for Petitioner. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against an interim order passed by a Civil Judge in a pending suit on 6th of February, 1990, whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10, of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. This order was upheld in revision by the Additional District Judge.

2. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner against respondents Nos.l to 3, praying that they be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the property in his occupation, which forms part of Lakhshmi Mansion, Shahra‑e‑Quad‑i‑Azam. The trial Court, vide its order dated 6th of February, 1990, directed that the name of the Custodian Enemy Property be deleted from the array of the defendants holding that it was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings as no relief has been claimed against it. The petitioner instead of challenging that order any further, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading the Custodian Enemy Property as defendant which was rejected on 22nd of February, 1990. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 8th of March, 1990, hence, this Constitutional petition.

3. The learned counsel admits that no relief was claimed in the suit against the Custodian Enemy Property, but contended that as the Custodian has vital interest in the property, it was not only a proper but also a necessary party to the proceedings. It is to be seen that originally, the Custodian of Enemy Property had been arrayed as a defendant in the plaint, but his name had been struck off by the trial Court, vide its order dated 6th of February, 1990. Obviously, therefore, the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading the Custodian again was not competent.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaint has been perused. There is neither any relief claimed against the custodian Enemy Property nor has it been shown as to what is the interest of the Custodian in the suit property. The view taken by the Courts below that the custodian Enemy Property is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the proceedings cannot be said to be without lawful authority so as to attract interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition is dismissed in limine. AA./I‑283/L Petition dismissed.