2014 PLP 531 (SCMR)
SYNTRON LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HUMA IJAZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 531 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ |
| Parties | SYNTRON LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HUMA IJAZ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 531 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 531 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 531 (SCMR) (SYNTRON LIMITED — Petitioner Versus HUMA IJAZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Habib-ur-Rehman, Storage and Enforcement Officer, Divisional Office Food, Rawalpindi for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 25th August, 2009.
- 5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. He contends that the learned Single Judge in Lahore High Court, while passing the impugned order did not bother to look into the facts of the case to see whether the claim of the petitioner, to be impleaded as one of the respondents in the petition, was justified within the parameter of Order I, rule 10(2), C.P.C. or not. Instead of doing so, following an earlier order dated 23-5-2007, on application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. earlier moved by some other private party to be joined as respondent to the petition, a mechanical order was passed for dismissal of the application. His further submission is that looking to the controversy raised in the petition, which is of public importance vis-a-vis nature of the petitioner's business, they are not only proper but necessary party to protect their own interest, which may be at stake in the petition and also render proper assistance to the Court about the technical aspects of the process of manufacturing WPP bags.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4-10-2007 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1836 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.4384 of 2007.)
Arts. 199 & 184(3)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R.10(2)
Impleadment of a party to such litigation
More liberal stance was needed to be taken by the courts for impleadment of parties to such litigation, to enable it to hear all the parties concerned, who were likely to be affected by any judgment in such proceedings.
O. I, R. 10(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Impleadment of a party to such litigation
Scope
Party whose "interest was likely to be prejudiced"
Constitutional petition was filed before the High Court in the nature of public interest litigation questioning the manufacturing and marketing of Woven Poly-Propylene ("WPP") bags and in such context direction was sought to stop any further procurement of such bags or any plans to store any essential daily use item like wheat in such bags
Applicant -company, which claimed to be manufacturer and supplier of WPP bags moved an application before the High Court under O.I, R. 10(2), C.P.C. to be joined as a respondent in the constitutional petition since decision of the petition was likely to affect their interest, and since it could render proper technical assistance to the court about the technical aspects of process of manufacturing of WPP bags
High Court refused said application
Held, in case constitutional petition was granted in terms of the prayer made therein, the interest of applicant-company was likely to be prejudiced considering the fact that it manufactured WPP bags
Joining of applicant-company as a respondent to the constitutional petition was not only proper but also necessary in such circumstances
Even otherwise in cases involving issues of public interest litigation, more liberal stance was needed to be taken by the courts for impleadment of parties to such litigation, to enable it to hear all the parties concerned, who were likely to be affected by any judgment in such proceedings
Order of High Court was set aside and applicant-company was allowed to be joined as a respondent to the constitutional petition
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
By this petition, leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 4-10-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber at Lahore High Court, thereby dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1836 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.4384 of 2007, moved by the petitioner Company for their impleadment as respondent in the said petition.
2. Relevant facts, gleaned from the case record are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 in this petition, have filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the nature of public interest litigation, alleging violation of fundamental rights of public importance, which were, inter alia, protected by Article 9 of the Constitution. In substance, they have questioned the manufacturing and marketing of Woven Poly Propylene (WPP) bags and in this context sought directions against respondents Nos.3 and 4 to stop any further procurement of WPP bags of any plans presently underway to store any such essential daily use item in particular wheat in WPP bags and to completely refrain and abstain from doing so any time in the future.
3. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner company, claiming themselves to be the manufacturers, and suppliers of WPP bags moved an application under Order I, rule 10(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. to be joined as one of the respondents in the petition, as, according to them, the decision of such petition was likely to affect their interest, as they were one of the major suppliers of WPP bags to respondent No.3.
4. After notice of such application (C.M.A. No.1836 of 2007) to the respondents and receipt of their reply, learned Single Judge in Chamber, dismissed the application by order dated 4-10-2007, which reads as under:-- "I find that some applications earlier filed by some parties to intervene in these proceedings on similar grounds as being urged on behalf of the present applicant and have already been dismissed for reasons stated in order dated 23-5-2007, I am not inclined to differ with the said reasoning. This C.M. is accordingly disposed of. Main W.P. to be taken up on its turn".
5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. He contends that the learned Single Judge in Lahore High Court, while passing the impugned order did not bother to look into the facts of the case to see whether the claim of the petitioner, to be impleaded as one of the respondents in the petition, was justified within the parameter of Order I, rule 10(2), C.P.C. or not. Instead of doing so, following an earlier order dated 23-5-2007, on application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. earlier moved by some other private party to be joined as respondent to the petition, a mechanical order was passed for dismissal of the application. His further submission is that looking to the controversy raised in the petition, which is of public importance vis-a-vis nature of the petitioner's business, they are not only proper but necessary party to protect their own interest, which may be at stake in the petition and also render proper assistance to the Court about the technical aspects of the process of manufacturing WPP bags.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and seen that in case writ petition, filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, against respondents Nos.3 and 4, is granted, in terms of the prayer made therein, the interest of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced, looking to the nature of their business of manufacturing of WPP bags. Even otherwise, in the cases involving issues of public interest litigation more liberal stance is needed to be taken by the Courts for impleadment of parties to such litigation, to enable it to hear all the parties concerned, who are likely to be affected by any judgment in such proceedings.
7. In the instant case, the assertion of the petitioner that they are engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of WPP sacks and bags is not disputed nor the fact that in substance relief sought in the petition is an order of restraint against respondents Nos.3 and 4 from procurement of such bags for storage of wheat and other material. In such circumstances, in our opinion, joining of the petitioner company as one of the respondents in the petition, as prayed by them, in C.M. No.1836 of 2007, is not only proper, rather necessary.
8. In view of the above discussion, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed in the terms that the impugned order dated 4-10-2007 in Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2007 is set aside and C.M. No.1836 of 2007 is granted. The amended title of the petition be accordingly filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, with advance copy to the respondents. MWA/S-6/SC Appeal allowe