1992 PLP 1646 (CLC)

I to

3. Adjourned by consent as the decision ,on the other `two applications will have a bearing on them.

4. Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque does not press this application. It is dismissed as such,

5. It is an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (1) read with section 151, C.P:C. moved by the intervenors. The dispute relates to certain business concerns, houses and movable assets. Mr. Anwar Mansoor in support of his application submits that the properties mentioned in paragraphs Nos.18 and 9 of the plaint were left behind by the deceased Fazal Rehman, who died in or about 2‑2‑1971. The properties as aforesaid, were managed and looked after by defendants Nos.2 to 4, who are the sons of intervenor No.l and brothers of Intervenors Nos.2 and

3. He further submits that the intervenors as legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to their respective shares in the estate of the deceased and for rendition of accounts in respect of the said properties as the business and property are being appropriated by the said defendants without even paying any subsistence allowance‑ to the intervenors which they paid for some time to them. The intervenors thus claim to be proper and necessary party to the suit by adding as co‑plaintiffs. Mr. Muhammad Akram Zubairi, learned counsel for the plaintiff has no objection to join them as co‑plaintiffs. However, the application is opposed by Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, learned counsel for the defendants. Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque raises two pleas; firstly that to join the intervenors as co‑plaintiffs will be against the provisions of Order II, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. as the intervenors have filed a separate suit bearing Suit No.751,'86 and secondly, according to him there is disclaimer by the plaintiff in this suit in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 4 and so it will c1ange the character of the suit. In so far the provisions of Order 11, Rules 2 and 3 are concerned Mr. Anwar Mansoor submits that the suit filed by him is based on a different cause of action inasmuch as it is a suit for declaration, injunction, rendition of accounts and cancellation of documents in respect of M/s. Afghan Carpets , a partnership firm as alleged by him. Moreover, the suit has been filed by the intervenors against three sons of the deceased, who are defendants Nos.2 and 4 and they have nothing to do in the second suit with the plaintiff in the first suit. The first suit, according to him, is a suit concerning the rendition of accounts and other things in respect of the assets of the deceased Fatal‑ur‑Rehman which are not partnership assets. Therefore, as submitted by him, the causes of action accrued to intervenors in the present suit and the other suit are distinct and separate and so his case is not hit by the provisions of Order II, Rules 2 and 3 at all. A perusal of the plaint in Suit, No.751/86 reveals that it is a suit by the Intervenors, the mother and two sisters, of defendants Nos.2‑to 4 in respect of M/s. Afghan Carpet, a firm only of which the intervenors as plaintiffs in Suit No.751/86 claim to be partners. Reference in this respect may be made to a copy of the certificate of the registration of firm produced by the defendants in that suit which supports the contention of the intervenors/plaintiffs in that suit as it bears the name of at least intervenor No.l as partner of the said firm. The firm as stated in the said certificate appears to have been dissolved with effect from 1‑1‑1985, whereas defendant No.l in Suit No. 512/86 has been shown M/s. Afghan Carpets (Pvt.) Ltd., a company, a separate entity, to the exclusion of the said intervenors. On the basis of the material placed on record I agree with the submission of Mr. Anwar Mansoor that Suit No.751 /86 relates to rendition of accounts of a partnership firm, M/s. Afghan Carpets, which according to him, has been unilaterally dissolved by the defendants 2 to 4 without bringing the fact to the knowledge of the said intervenors/plaintiffs. The present suit No.512/86 is a suit pertaining to all the properties left behind by the deceased, Fazal‑ur‑Rehman and all the profits made therefrom and accretions made thereto. The causes of action in both the suits are therefore, distinct and separate. In so far the point of disclaimer is concerned it will not be proper or fair on my part to say any thing about it as it is of little concern to me while deciding this application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. It may perhaps prejudice either party. The question will be decided by the Court when the case proceeds. But I am sure that the nature of suit, as framed; will not undergo a change, if the intervenors are joined in the suit. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the intervenors are proper and necessary party to be joined in the suit. They be joined as co‑plaintiffs. Mr. Muhamamd Akram Zubain undertakes to file amended plaint within two weeks. AA/T‑138/K Application accepted.