P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

Amjal Mian for Defendant. Date of hearing: 11th March 1965. Reasons for and the circumstances under which the present application under Order I, rule 10 read with section 151, C. P. C. is filed for joinder of K. P. T. as defendant appear to be relevant and necessary for disposal of this application and these; as briefly stated, are as follows:‑ Plaintiff (National Bank of Pakistan) had, at the request made by the defendant (Syed Muzammal Hussain, proprietor of Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Karachi stood surety for the per formance of the contract which this defendant‑firm had entered into with the Karachi Port Trust for re rolling of Mild Steel Scrap into M. S. Round Bars, and had given such guarantee to the Karachi Port Trust on various dates in the sums of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 30,

000. In view‑ of this position, defendant had deposited with the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 43,000 only as margin "in order to meet any demand of the Karachi Port Trust for the payment of any amount under the said guarantees." Subsequently by a letter, dated 21‑2‑62 Karachi Port Trust asked the plaintiff to make payment of Rs. 80,000 (the amount of the above stated three guarantees) and it was complied with on 9‑4‑62 after appropriating the said margin of Rs. 43,

000. Present suit has been filed for recovery of the remaining amount along with interest. This claim has been disputed by the defendant (Syed Muzammal Hussain) and his pleas are shown in the issues raised. Reference to a passage in para graph 1 of his written, statement appears necessary and it reads as follows:‑ "It is admitted that defendant's firm is known as Seigfried Beacon, Karachi but it is denied that this firm entered into a contract with Karachi Port Trust. The agreement was between defendant's firm and Chief Store Keeper Karachi Port Trust and not with Karachi Port Trust as alleged in this para. In the alternative it is submitted that the Karachi Port Trust however deny that they have entered into a contract with the firm of the defendant as described in the title of the plaint of this suit. The Karachi Port Trust allege a contract with Messrs Seigfried Beacon Pakistan Ltd., and hence they could not enforce any rights‑ against the firm of the defendant." On the basis of this plea which appears in the amended written statement filed by the defendant issue No. 5 has been raised and it reads as follows:‑- "Whether the Karachi Port Trust entered into a contract with Messrs Siegfried Beacon (Pakistan) Ltd. and not with Messrs Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan)? If so, was the plaintiff not justified in making payment of guarantees given on behalf of Siegfried Beacon (Pakistan)." In view of this position, plaintiff has filed this application with a prayer that Karachi Port Trust be joined as a co‑defendant and this prayer is strongly opposed by the proposed defendant viz. Karachi Port. Trust but is supported by the defendant himself. Request of the defendant under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. was granted to amend his written statement in view of the letter, dated‑ 10‑6‑63 addressed to defendant's Advocate by K. P. T.' Relevant passage in this letter is reproduced below: "My clients had entered into a contract with Messrs Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Ltd., a private limited company and not with Syed Muzammal Hussain . . . . In response to the aforesaid letter my clients, vide their Advocate's letter dated 16‑1‑1963 and the subsequent reminder dated 12‑2‑63, had requested the aforesaid Advocate to ask his client to clarify the position whether Messrs Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Ltd., is a private limited company or not . . . ". It is clear from this letter that the only clarification sought by K. P. T. is in respect of Messrs Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Ltd., i.e., whether it was a private limited company or not. This letter further shows that they had entered into a contract with Messrs Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Ltd. and not with Syed Muzammal Hussain who is described in the title of the plaint as proprietor of Seigfried Beacon (Pakistan) Karachi. Under Order I, rule 10 (2) Court has wide discretion to join a party as defendant or plaintiff to a suit when (1) a person ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined, or, (2) when without the presence of a person sought to be made a party the question in the suit cannot be completely decided. Thus the discretion allowed to a Court under this sub‑rule has to be exercised judicially so as not to cause inconvenience or embarrassment to the parties. The test of the applicability of this sub‑rule is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will) directly affect the intervenor in the enjoyment of his rights‑1A A ‑person is said to be legally interested in the matter only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally. This question of joinder of parties is not a matter of substantive right but it is merely one of procedure. Parties are either proper or necessary. In the case of former, if his presence before the B Court is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The object of adding a proper party is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no effective decree at all can be passed. Test in such cases is to determine whether a party is necessary on not if a fruitful decree can be passed in his absence. The expression "questions involved in suit" means questions as between the parties to litigation, i.e., questions with regard to right set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied or withheld on the other. Applications of this nature must not be allowed if its grant would implead a person and the nature of the suit is altered. This view was taken in case reported in Mukhi Jeramdas ‑Jethananak and others v. Tikamal Mulchand and another (1). It also lays down in what circumstances or reasons for which a person could be joined as a party to suit. Vaithilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhina Karthar Tiruvaduthurai Adhinam v. Sadasiva 1yer and others (2) deals with interpretation of the expression: "all questions involved in the suit", and it was held that it means. all questions between the parties to the litigation. The addition of persons, who are only indirectly affected and not directly interested in the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant, as parties to the suit, is a question of jurisdiction; and the Court has no power, under Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add persons only indirectly interested as parties to the suit (6 Indian Cases 36). A case reported in Anjaneya Sastri.v. Kothandapani Chettiar and others (3) lays down that a party would be joined only to avoid multiplicity even though that person be not interested in all reliefs or questions arising between the plaintiff and the other defendants. Last case referred to me is reported in Vanjiappa Goundan v. N. P. V. L. R. Annamalai Chattiar and others (4) and it deals with the interpretation of the expression "questions involved in the suit". It was held in that case that this expression means "Not merely the questions which are involved in the suit as originally framed between the parties to the suit. The object of the provision is that where several disputes arise out of one subject‑ matter, all the parties interested in such disputes should be brought before the Court and all questions in controversy between them that should be completely settled in the action". It is clear from the pleadings of the parties in this suit that the main question to be determined between them is whether plaintiff had stood surety for the defendant as described in the title of the plaint and, secondly, whether he has paid a sum o p Rs. 80,000 to Karachi Port Trust in view of this guarantee. Karachi Port Trust would not be interested in the decision on these points. For these reasons I hold that K. P. T. is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Application is accordingly dismissed with costs. S.A.H. Application dismissed.