1993 PLP 2489 (CLC)

This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 3‑10‑1992, by which a learned Civil Judge at Hafizabad, accepting the application of Ejaz Hussain respondent made under 0.1, Rule 10, C.P.C. allowed him to become a party to the suit brought by Sabaz Ali petitioner against respondents Nos.2 and 3 for specific performance of contract of sale dated 6‑7‑1990. Ejaz Hussain respondent had become a party to the suit on the ground that the property had been sold to him by Abbas Ali respondent No.2 on 1‑12‑1990 through an agreement to sell. Earlier Ejaz Hussain respondent had filed a suit against Abbas Ali respondent No.2 for the specific performance of contract of sale of the disputed property based on the agreement to sell, dated 1‑12‑1990. In that suit Abbas Ali respondent No.2 as defendant had made an application for the rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. and it was rejected by an order, dated 27‑7‑1992, by the trial Court. Against this order the R.FA. No. 179 of 1992 is pending in the High Court.

2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Ejaz Hussain respondent No.l could not become a party to the suit brought by Sabaz Ali against Abbas Ali because he had filed an independent suit which had been dismissed and his appeal is pending in the High Court as it amounts to add a new cause of action and as such he was neither necessary nor a proper party. In this connection he refers to PLD 1975 SC 463 and PLD 1968 Lahore 1076.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. It is argued on behalf of respondent No.l that the petitioner is brother of respondent No.3 who is wife of respondent No.2 and he has brought a collusive suit against them with a view to avoid the performance of contract of sale entered into by respondent No.2 with respondent No.l in respect of the disputed property, for this he has already received Rs. 1 lac as earnest money out of the total sale price of Rs:3‑1/2 lacs.

5. There are two claimants of the disputed property, namely, the petitioner on the one hand and respondent No.l on the other. Both are basing on respective claims on the agreements to sell.

6. To avoid conflicting decisions they have to contest their conflicting claims in one and the same suit against respondents Nos.2 and

3. Since the petitioner is admittedly the brother of respondent No.3, who is wife of respondent No.2, there is more likelihood of collusion between them against respondent No.l who in these circumstances appears to be a necessary party to the suit brought by the petitioner against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, despite the fact that his own appeal is pending in the High Court against the rejection of his plaint. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned order passed I by the learned Civil Judge and the Civil Revision is dismissed in limine. AA./S‑383/L Revision dismissed.