1988 PLP 1339 (CLC)
Mian MUHAMMAD ABDUL MALIK LUDHIANWI‑‑Plaintiff Versus SADRUDDIN HASHWANI and others‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1339 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, J |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD ABDUL MALIK LUDHIANWI‑‑Plaintiff Versus SADRUDDIN HASHWANI and others‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1339 (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 1988 PLP 1339 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1339 (CLC) (Mian MUHAMMAD ABDUL MALIK LUDHIANWI‑‑Plaintiff Versus SADRUDDIN HASHWANI and others‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fasihuddin for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑
0. I, R. 10(2)‑‑Striking off names of defendants‑‑Persons joined as formal defendants in suit were neither necessary or proper party nor any relief was sought by plaintiff against them‑‑Such defendants against whom no allegation was made, held, at best could be witnesses, but could not be joined as defendants‑‑High Court ordered that their names as defendants in plaint be struck off. Nasiruddin for Plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
Suit No.102 of 1985, decided on 25th October, 1987. ‑‑‑
0. I, R. 10(2)‑‑Striking off names of defendants‑‑Persons joined as formal defendants in suit were neither necessary or proper party nor any relief was sought by plaintiff against them‑‑Such defendants against whom no allegation was made, held, at best could be witnesses, but could not be joined as defendants‑‑High Court ordered that their names as defendants in plaint be struck off. Nasiruddin for Plaintiff. Fasihuddin for Respondents. The defendants have filed both these applications which will be disposed off by this order. The first application is for rejection of the plaint, against defendants Nos. 5 to 10 and
13. The second application is for striking off their name. The main allegation of these defendants is that they are neither necessary, nor proper party in the suit and no relief has been sought against them. In the plaint it has been alleged that these defendants have been joined as formal defendants without seeking any relief against them. Mr. Nasiruddin the learned counsel has contended that a person may not be a necessary party, but he can be joined as a defendant. In this regard he has relied on passage from the Commentary of Amer Raza on Code of Civil Procedure. He has also referred to paragraph 10 of the plaint onwards to show that these defendants are necessary parties. The plaintiff has claimed damages against the defendant No.1 for making alleged defamatory, insulting and false statement regarding operation and establishment of Islamic Banking in Pakistan. The plaintiff has not claimed any other relief in the suit. The defendants Nos. 5 to 10 and 13 have taken no notice of the statement of the defendant No. 1 but the plaintiff claims to have suffered damages. No legal right of the plaintiff is involved in the suit, nor the plaintiff is claiming entitlement to any legal character or to any right to any property which is being threatened or is adversely affected by any act of the defendants. A perusal of the plaint will show that the plaintiff has made no allegation against the defendants Nos. 5 to 10 A and
13. At best they can be witnesses. In the circumstances, I allow the application and strike off the name of the defendants Nos. 5 to 10 and
13. The office should strike off from the plaint the names of defendants 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 with red ink. H . B . T. /M‑432/ K Application allowed.