1998 PLP 2020 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR NASEEM‑‑‑‑Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, GUJRANWALA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2020 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR NASEEM‑‑‑‑Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, GUJRANWALA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2020 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2020 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2020 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR NASEEM‑‑‑‑Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, GUJRANWALA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ali Bin Abdul Kadir, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Yawar Ali Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 1998.
- Syed Ali Bin Abdul Kadir, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Yawar Ali Khan, Deputy Attorney-General and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 21‑10‑1993 passed in Appeal No.317‑L of 1993). (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 5(2)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I., R‑r. 9 & 10‑‑‑Appeal to Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Non‑impleading of persons likely to be affected by the judgment‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Procedure‑‑‑Service Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal purely on a technical ground that the persons likely to be affected by the judgment had not been impleaded as party in the appeal especially when a request was orally made to the Tribunal to implead such persons‑‑‑Service Tribunal for purposes of deciding an appeal was deemed to be a Civil Court and enjoyed all such powers as were vested in such Court under 0.1, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C.‑‑‑Even if the appellant had not made any request to joining of other persons as party and Service Tribunal had reached the conclusion that it was necessary to join other persons as party in the case. Tribunal could, in exercise of its powers under 0.1, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C., suo motu, order impleadment of said persons. The Service Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal purely on a technical ground that the persons likely to be affected by the judgment have not been impleaded as party in the appeal especially when a request was orally made to the Tribunal to implead those person in the case. It may be pointed out that by virtue of section 5(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, the Tribunal, for the purposes of deciding an appeal is deemed to be a Civil Court and it enjoys all such powers as are vested in such Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order I, Rule 9, C.P.C. clearly provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non joinder of parties, and the Court may, in every suit, deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the right and interest of the parties actually before it. Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C confers wide powers on the Court to substitute or add the persons who ought to have been made parties or may strike out names of parties who should not have been joined in the proceedings. Even if the appellant had not made any request for joining of other persons as party and the Service Tribunal had. reached the conclusions that it is necessary to join other persons as party in the case, it could in exercise of its powers under Order I, Rules 9 and 10, C.P.C., suo motu order impleadment of those persons who were necessary to be impleaded in the appeal as party. The Tribunal being exclusive Tribunal to decide the disputes relating to the Government servants, should not have non‑suited the appellant on such a technical ground. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 5(2)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, Rr. 9 & 10‑‑‑Non impleading of necessary party in appeal‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on ground of non‑impleading necessary party by the appellant, Supreme Court allowed the appeal against order of the Tribunal and set aside the order of Service Tribunal with the direction that the appellant may apply for impleadment of necessary parties before the Tribunal and after they are joined the appeal may be heard and decided by the Service Tribunal, in accordance with the law.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 21-10-1993 whereby the learned Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground that about 18 persons, who were likely to be affected by the judgment of the Service Tribunal, were not impleaded as party to the appeal filed before it. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant took the plea that he had made oral request to the learned Tribunal that the persons who are likely to be affected by the judgment in the case may be impleaded. This assertion is also made m the affidavit sworn in by the appellant before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Attorney-General, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the above appeal purely on a technical ground that the persons likely to be affected by the judgment have not been impleaded as party in the appeal especially when a request was orally made to the learned Tribunal to implead those. persons in the case. It may be pointed out that by virtue of section 5(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, the Tribunal for the purposes of deciding an appeal is deemed to be a Civil Court and it enjoys all such powers as are vested in such Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 1, Rule 9, C.P.C. clearly provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the right and interest of the parties actually before it. Order 1, Rule 10 confers vide powers on the Court to substitute or add the persons who ought to have been made parties or may strike out names of parties who should not have been joined in the proceedings. We are, therefore, of the view that even if the appellant had not made any request for joining of other persons as party and the learned Tribunal had reached the conclusion that it is necessary to join other persons as party in the case, it could in exercise of its powers under Order 1, Rules 9 and 10, C.P.C. suo motu order impleadment of those persons who were necessary to be impleaded in the appeal as party. The learned Tribunal being exclusive Tribunal to decide the disputes relating to the Government servants, should not have non-suited the appellant on such a technical ground. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Service Tribunal. The appellant may apply for impleadment of necessary parties before the Tribunal and after they are joined the appeal may be heard and decided by the Service Tribunal, in accordance with the law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M.B.A./M-179/S Appeal allowed.