1999 PLP 3329 (MLD)

J. H. Rahimtoola for Defendant No Nazar Hussain Dhoon for Defendant No. 2

1. C. M. A. No. 6059 of 1995. The learned counsel appearing for the parties state that vide order dated 17-9-1996 the Court has deferred hearing of this application and had directed the parties to furnish original documents in Court. The parties state that they have filed original documents in Court but the same have not been sent by the office today. The office is directed to send the original documents filed by the parties in the Court on the next date of hearing. By consent the suit is adjourned to 4th September 1997.

2. C. M. A. No. 565/96. By this application the defendant No. 1 who has received a notice from defendant No. 2 for payment of Development Charges of Rs. 1,68,082 which amount the defendant No. 1 wants to pay to defendant No-2. By-consent this application is allowed and the defendant No. is allowed to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the defendant No. 2 but this payment however will not create any interest in the suit property. Further this payment will be without prejudice to the plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint and also this payment will be subject to the decision of the suit. The application stands disposed of.

3. C. M. A. No. 566/96: The learned counsel appearing for the pasties sate that both the parties have filed the original documents in Court as such the present application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as not pressed for the time being.

4. C. M. A. No. 567/96: The defendant No. 1 has filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for joining Muhammad Amin, Estates Agent of Allied Estates, 65-C/1, Shop No. 2 Defence Commercial Area, Defence Society, Karachi. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. J. Rahimtoola; Advocate has argued that he has mentioned in para 8 of the men statement that he forgot to take with him the file of the original documents of plot in suit from the office of the aforesaid Estate Agent." The learned- counsel further submitted that the proposed defendant is a necessary/proper party in view of this fact. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant Mr. Aziz Malik opposed this application and stated that no relief in the suit has been claimed by the plaintiff nor defendant No. 1 in his counter claim has prayed for any relief against the proposed party. He has relied upon PLD 1975 SC Page 463, 1996 A C L C 1009 wherein it has been observed that if no relief has been sought against the party it could not be deemed to be a necessary proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Further he has relied upon 1992 C L C page 700 in which it has been observed that the questions involved in the suit refer only to the questions arising out of the pleading, between the parties to the suit and not the questions which may arise between the parties to the suit and a third party. In view of the above discussion, Muhammad Amin Estate Agent is not a proper/necessary party to the suit. In view of the above I see no merit in this application which is dismissed accordingly. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M.286/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.