1998 PLP 1311 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN ABDI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1311 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN ABDI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1311 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1311 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1311 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed IRSHAD HUSSAIN ABDI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Petitioner.
- M. S. Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 11th November, 1997
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O.1, R.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Impleading lessee of property in question as defendant in suit on application of such lessee‑‑ Plaintiff's review application filed on the date of order in question was dismissed as also his revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where any person by getting declaration through Court was likely to gain advantage as regards his rights, he could not be refused declaration on ground of want of locus standi‑‑‑Plaintiff had failed to point out any jurisdictional defect so as to justify relief sought for‑‑‑No prejudice would be caused to plaintiff if lessee remained impleaded as defendant‑‑‑Courts below having exercised their discretion properly and without any taint of illegality, no case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was made out. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698 rel. Latif Ahmad v. Mst. Rashidan 1992 CLC 1173 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Petitioner. M. S. Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents Nos.3 to
5. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1997 During the pendency of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner, respondent No.6 made an application before the learned Civil Court, Bahawalpur, that he being a lessee of the Auquaf Department be impleaded as 'one of defendants. The application of respondent No.6 was allowed by order dated 7‑11‑1994 who was impleaded as one of the defendants. The review application filed by the present petitioner on the same date was also dismissed on 19‑11‑1995. The petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide order dated 23‑9‑1996.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the tenant is neither a necessary nor a proper party within the meaning of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as none of his rights in suit land are affected. Reliance was placed on the case of Latif Ahmad v. Mst. Rashidan (1992 CLC 1173) in support of his contention.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 has submitted that the interest of respondent No.6 would be adversely affected if respondent No.6 is kept out of the array of the defendants as he was conducted as a lessee of the agricultural land of the Auquaf Department.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The precedent case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted to the present case in which respondent No.6 was impleaded as defendant and he had not instituted the suit in his capacity as the plaintiff. In the case of Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that a person, by getting a declaration through Court, if likely to gain an advantage as regards his rights, cannot be refused declaration on ground of want of locus standi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect so as the justify the relief sought for. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner is respondent No.6 remains impleaded as defendant. The learned Courts below have exercised their discretion properly without my taint of illegality.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ, petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.
6. The learned trial Court is however, directed to conclude the trial of the case, if possible, within six months. A.A./M‑598/L Petition dismissed