2007 PLP 3091 (YLR)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-6-2005, whereby an application submitted by the appellant was dismissed. The relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 Al-Zamin Leasing Modarba filed a suit against the respondents 2 to 6 for recovery of Rs.20,963,

036. On 20-10-2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the ganishee respondent No.6, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., not to disburse the amount with the bank to any one till the next date of hearing. On 3-1-2005, an application was submitted by the present appellant who is not a party to the .suit under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and Order XXXVIII, Rule 10 r/w section 151 C.P.C, praying that the order dated 20-10-2004 be recalled, as it has prejudiced the rights and interest of the applicant/appellant. The learned Single Judge observed that the applicant/appellant Hassan-ud-din is not a party to the suit and has not satisfactorily established that the cheques issued in his favour were bona fide and were due from respondent No.2 Muhammad Asif Jamil, Proprietor of Iqra Enterprises. The application was dismissed for the reason that no case was made out for recalling, of the order. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show law under which a stranger can file an application for recalling of an interlocutory order passed by a Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Saya and Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. PLD 1969 SC

65. The learned counsel is not in possession of judgment today, and has placed reliance by merely referring to the above judgment of Honourable Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that the law as laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in H.M. Saya's case is not attracted for the reason that in this case the Honourable Supreme Court explained, as to who is an aggrieved party and has the right to file the appeal. The Honourable Supreme. Court has not dilated on the point if a person who feels aggrieved by an interlocutory .order and can submit an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., for being joined as party to the .proceedings can make an application for recalling of an interlocutory order without submitting an application for being joined as a party. The ratio of the judgment in Saya's case is not applicable for another reason, that once a suit is decided by the Court; a person feeling aggrieved could not make an application for being joined as party for the simple reason that after pronouncing the final judgment the ' proceedings are terminated and the Court becomes functus officio. Of course, if a person feels aggrieved on the ground that decree has been obtained against him by mis representation or fraud and without showing him as a party .can submit an application under section 12(2) C.P.C., but the question of submitting an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. does not arise. However, if a suit is still pending and any person feels that he is a necessary party to the proceedings he may submit an application for being joined as party to the suit. If it is not done, a person feeling aggrieved would be stranger to the proceedings and a. stranger cannot be allowed to make a request for recalling of the order which has been passed with reference to the parties to the proceedings. The interlocutory orders are normally in respect of the parties to the suit and such orders are not in the nature of judgment in rem and are not applicable to the entire world. Once the legal character of a person is declared then it has the effect of being applicable to the entire world and any body feeling aggrieved by such declaration can file appeal or if it is a fraudulent order obtained by the mis-declaration or misstatement or concealment of fact, an application under section 12(2). C.P.C., can be submitted. In the present case, the appellant had although opportunity to submit an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., and satisfy the learned trial Court that he would be a proper or necessary party for the reason that his interest was involved 'in the issues before the Court and once the application was allowed he could file an application for recalling of the order. If the application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. was rejected the appellant could have filed an appeal against the rejection of application. It is trite principle of law that the things should be done, as they are required to be done or not at all. The system of administration of justice envisages discipline and if every body is allowed to file any application he likes then it will lead to legal anarchy. Every body seeking relief from the Court should bring himself within the system of law and cannot be allowed to destroy the system for seeking the relief. The Legislature while enacting C.P.C. has taken care to cover all the situations and has thereafter enacted section 151 C.P.C., with the purpose that in case a situation arises which is not covered by the provisions in C.P.C., the Courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction. However, it is settled law that if there are specific provision in C.P.C. then no resort has to be made to section 151 C.P.C. In the present case, the appellant has still opportunity to submit an .application before the learned trial Court for being joined as party to the proceedings and thereafter seek relief from the trial Court. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the application submitted by the appellant, a stranger was not maintainable in law and the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly held the application was without any merit. No exception can be taken to the dismissal of application which was not maintainable in law. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in limine along with listed application. S.A.K./H-21/K Appeal dismissed.