1999 PLP 2000 (CLC)

The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief on 12‑7‑1990 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vehari who entrusted the same to the Civil Judge 1st Class, Vehari. The petitioner filed an application to implead him as a proper and necessary party which was accepted by the learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 13‑12‑1990. Respondent No.2 being aggrieved filed revision petition before the District Judge, Vehari who accepted the same vide order, dated 21‑4‑1991.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgment of the learned District Judge is not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Superior Courts and he relied upon the following judgments: ‑‑ (i) 1983 SCMR 534, (ii) 1993 CLC 1013. and further stated that learned District Judge reversed the order of the trial Court without adverting to the reasoning of the trial Court, therefore, the District Judge did not exercise discretion properly. He further stated that mere reading of the contents of the plaint reveals that the petitioner is proper and necessary party as respondent No.2 has specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 10, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is based on reasoning whereas the judgment of the learned District Judge is based on surmises and conjectures.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that judgment of the learned District Judge is in accordance with the law laid down by the Superior Courts and he relied on the following judgments: ‑‑ (i) PLD 1983 Lah. 294, (ii) PLD 1972 Lah. 169, (iii) 1971 SCMR 204 and (iv) 1972 SCMR

102. He further stated that the petitioner is not a necessary or proper party, therefore, the judgment of the learned District Judge is valid and based on reasons as the trial Court is in position to decide the case without impleading the petitioner in the proceedings. He further urged that the petitioner is not a beneficiary out of the proceedings of the: suit as respondent No.2 has filed a suit for a declaration against the public functionaries. He further stated that the petitioner is not owner of the village. therefore, he is not necessary and proper party whereas the trial Court decided the case on surmises and conjunctures.

4. I have given my anxious considerations to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the plaint to resolve the controversy between the parties. Aforesaid paragraphs of the plaint reveal that the proceedings against respondent No.2 were initiated on the application of the petitioner. In case petitioner is not a necessary party but certainly he is proper party as the principle laid down in Abdul Wali Khan's case PLD 1975 SC

463. The relevant observation is reproduced hereunder:‑‑

"The terms 'questions involved' include all matters, material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons parties is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The person must, therefore, be a person whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief is claimed against him. This does not, therefore, extend to persons who have no interest which is likely to be affected by the proceedings nor does it embrace persons only generally interested in common with others nor can persons be added as parties so as to set up new cause of action which does not concern the original parties " The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguished on facts and law. It is pertinent to mention here, as mentioned above, the proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2 on the application of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is a proper party as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above‑quoted precedent.

5. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition is accepted. No order as to costs. Q.M.HdM.A.K./M‑996/L Petition allowed.