1989 PLP 4334 (MLD)

This application under Order I, rule 10 C P C 3s moved by intervenor Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (I.D.B.P.) for being joined as party to the suit. It is further prayed on behalf of the intervenor that the Government of Sind and Deputy Commissioner West Karachi may also be joined as parties. I have heard Mr. A. I. Chundrigar, learned advocate for the intervenor and Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, learned Advocate for the plaintiff. The admitted facts appear to be that the land in suit was originally leased out for 75 years by the Government of Sind to the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently transferred the lease in the name of Messrs Valika Chemical Industries Limited: This Messrs Valika Chemical Industries was taken over by the Government of Pakistan under Economic Reforms Order 1972 (President Order I of 1972). The Government subsequently changed the name of Messrs Valika Chemical Industries Limited to Messrs Synthetic Chemical Limited, who is the present defendant. The defendant went into liquidation and an official liquidator has been appointed for the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit with the permission of the learned Company Judge, to establish their right over the land in suit. The intervenor, who is a Banking Institution, had advanced a loan to the defendant and as security for the payment of the loan, the defendant had mortgaged the suit land with the intervenor by deposit of their title deeds. The intervenor therefore have moved an application for being joined as a party. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, has opposed the application of the intervenor on the ground that intervenor is neither necessary nor a proper party as the original contract, as lessor and lessee, was between the plaintiff and the decendant, to which the intervenor was not a party. The question, who is a proper party was considered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan versus Abdul Wali Khan P L D 1975 S C

463. It was held by their Lordships as under:-- "A proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in the proceedings. 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 a new cause of action which does not concern the" original parties." The case of the intervenor is to be viewed in the light of the above law, laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court. There can be no dispute that the intervenor has some right/interest in the suit property, as it was mortgaged with them by the defendant by deposit of the title deeds of the said property to secure the loan advanced by them to the defendant. In other words they have got charge over the property in question. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, advocate was asked by the Court as to how the defendant could enforce their right over the property as mortgaged, if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The reply of Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh was that in such case, they could file a separate suit against the plaintiff. If the arguments of Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh are accepted, the situation would lead to multiplicity of suits. To void multiplicity of suits, as held in the aforesaid case, aid of Order I Rule 10 C P C can be invoked. In my opinion the intervenor is a proper party though no relief is sought against the intervenor as the decision of the suit is likely to affect his interests. The intervenor is ordered to be joined as defendant in the suit. Mr. A.I. Chundrigar, advocate for the intervenor could not satisfy the Court as to how the Government of Sind and Deputy Commissioner West were' necessary or proper parties. The rights of the Government of Sind as original lessor of property are not affected by the outcome of the suit, as even the plaintiffs claim their right under the lease from the Government of Sind. The prayer of the intervenor to join the Government of Sind and Deputy Commissioner West as parties is therefore disallowed: H.B.T./V-17/K Order accordingly.