2007 PLP 1895 (MLD)
JAVED KIYANI — Appellant Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT through District Coordination Officer, Karachi — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1895 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVED KIYANI — Appellant Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT through District Coordination Officer, Karachi — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms .Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1895 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms .Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1895 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1895 (MLD) (JAVED KIYANI — Appellant Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT through District Coordination Officer, Karachi — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
High Court had suo motu ordered production of certain documents including the original layout plan of area concerned
No infirmity existed in the order of the High Court, though same was made at the stage of final hearing
Court could pass any order at any stage to do complete justice.
Judgment & Decree
By order; impugned herein, the learned Single Judge of this Court had suo motu ordered production of certain documents including the original layout plan of the area relevant to the suit plot and has also ordered impleading Sheri as a party to the proceedings.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any infirmity in the order insofar as production of documents is concerned though made at the stage of final hearing inasmuch as the Court, can pass any order at any stage to do complete justice.
3. However, the order for impleading Sheri at the stage when the final arguments were to be heard was not required to be made. Even otherwise, we do not find that Sheri was a necessary party to be impleaded for a just and fair decision in the matter which is a test for allowing a party to be joined in a pending matter. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside as the issues involved can well be settled on the basis of the record that has been .placed or may be placed and the presence of Sheri is not at all required for a just and proper decision in the suit.
4. This High Court Appeal stands disposed of on above terms. H.B.T./J-6/K Appeal dismissed.