2006 PLP 1067 (SCMR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Arts. 185(3) & 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.I, R.10---Constitutional petition before High Court---Impleading as necessary party---Suit property was mutated in the name of petitioner but High Court refused to implead him as party to the proceedings---Validity---As the disputed property was mutated in the name of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be impleaded so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation which would follow in case of decision of main Constitutional petition pending adjudication before High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and order passed by High Court was set aside---Appeal was allowed.Riyasat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.Ozair Ahmed Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
• Date of hearing: 6th March, 2003.
• TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 13-1-2000 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby C.M. No.190 of 1998 filed in Writ Petition No.5857 of 1995 filed by the petitioner for his impleadment in the above writ petition was dismissed.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent claiming himself to be the holder of General Power of Attorney secured an ex parte decree. On the basis of the above power of attorney, he filed a declaratory suit on 9-6-1977 which was ex parte decreed against Khaleeq-uz-Zaman, respondent No.2. On the strength of the said decree, he alienated the disputed land to his sons on 27-9-1977.Respondent No.2, Khaleeq-uz-Zaman filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree which was allowed by the learned trial Court through its order; dated 16-2-1991. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the above order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, through his order, dated 4-7-1995. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.5857 of 1995 before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, Multan, which is still pending.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that through mutual exchange the petitioner has secured the disputed property and mutation to that effect has also been attested on 7-8-1995, copy whereof is appended with this petition at page 51 of the paper book. On the strength of the same, the petitioner on coming to know about the pendency of the above writ petition moved an application for his impleadment which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate-on-Record for respondent No.l. Admittedly, the disputed property at this juncture stands mutated in the name of the petitioner. In these circumstances it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be impleaded so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation which would follow in case of decision of the main writ petition which is pending adjudication before the Lahore High Court. The dispute in this case though of General Power of Attorney but certainly it is in respect of the property stated to be owned by respondent No.2, Khaleeq uz-Zaman.Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned order, dated 13-1-2000 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree