Necessary party

Penalty imposed by authorities was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal on the ground that raw material after conversion into finished goods had already been exported

Respondent / taxpayer assailed the Reference on the plea that liability was against Company whereas Reference was filed against director of Company

Respondent / taxpayer also raised objection against Reference which was not even signed by Collector Customs

Validity

Vakalatnama available on record clearly suggested that the Reference was filed on the instruction of Collector Customs by the counsel representing the Department, however, it was only signed by the counsel but at belated stage

Even if the Collector had failed to sign memo. of Reference but had consented to filing of Reference the same would be in accordance with law provided the counsel representing Department not only had signed the Reference in time but had presented the same before Court within the time stipulated by the law

Appeal was filed by the director and not by the Company, therefore, the company was not a necessary party as the matter only related to adjudication of certain questions of law which arose out of the judgment of Customs Appellate Tribunal

High Court overruled the objection raised by respondent / taxpayer

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as the Reference filed by authorities was barred by limitation

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants /defendants, during the pendency of appeal, moved an application under O. 1, R. 10 Civil Procedure Code, for impleading Revenue Officer(s), which was dismissed

Petitioners /defendants assailed the order passed by the Appellate Court

Contention of the petitioners was that the mutations-in-question were challenged on the ground of fraud, so the Revenue Authorities (Provincial Government, Tehsildar, etc.) were the necessary parties and that the same parties might be impleaded at any stage of the suit

Validity

Record revealed that the plaintiffs/ respondents filed the suit for declaration in the year 2009 with the allegation that the petitioners /defendants got sanctioned the inheritance mutation in the year 1943 while omitting their ( plaintiffs') name in the list of the legal hiers and all these proceedings were completed while concealing the facts

There was no specific allegation against any of the Revenue Officers that any of the Revenue Officer or Official was part of that conspiracy of omitting the name of the petitioners at the relevant time i.e. at the time of sanctioning of the mutation

Nowhere in the plaint any specific allegation was raised against any Revenue Officer or Official

Revenue officer by name can be impleaded in the suit if the Court feels it necessary and when there is a specific allegation against him for being the part of some illegal act otherwise the matters which are required to be decided on the basis of documents and the other related/relevant oral evidence, the Officials/Officers of Revenue Department are not necessary to be impleaded in such proposition, as the relevant record can be requisitioned and analyzed by the Court

Other aspect of said proposition was that the suit was filed in the year 2009 and the petitioners filed the written statement in the year 2010 without raising any objection and even in the evidence there was nothing about the fact that Revenue Officers/Officials were necessary party to the lis, therefore, to that extent the Appellate Court had rightly decided the fate of the application as it was filed after the remarkable delay as the appeal was filed in the year 2013 and said application under O. 1, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was filed in the year 2020 after a lapse of about 07 years for which there was no justification

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing application moved by the appellants

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner later approached the department for re-checking and pointed out that he had given the correct answer at Serial No. 39 of the MCQs (Multiple Choice Questions) but was not awarded a mark

One mark could have raised the petitioner from Serial No. 23 to Serial No. 21 of the merit list

Question put to the candidates who appeared in the written test conducted by the department was “What was called as 'Fateh Mubeen' in Holy Quran?”

Four choices were given: (i) Ghazwa-i-Badar (ii) Ghazwa-i-Tabuk (iii) Fatah-e-Makkah (iv) Sulah-e-Hudaibiya

Correct answer to the question was Sulah-e-Hudaibiya and the petitioner had answered it correctly

However, the petitioner had not arrayed the candidates/selectees who would be affected if relief was granted to him, nor had any attempt been made to array them as respondents

If relief was granted to the petitioner, it would result in the perpetuation of injustice

Education Testing and Evaluation Agency was directed to be careful in the future

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner was aggrieved of order whereby his application for permission to be impleaded as a party to appeal proceedings was dismissed

Contention of petitioner was that he was a necessary party; that he was claiming ownership based on two registered sale deeds and that the appellants in appeal proceedings were contesting acquisition proceedings

Validity

Nothing was available on record or alleged that any objection was raised to the acquisition proceedings, at the relevant time

Claim of alleged ownership was purportedly raised to interfere in the proceedings, which culminated through award

Merely because some dispute, if any, was pending regarding acquisition it was no reason for the petitioner to become party to the appeal

No illegality was found in the order when petitioner had failed to substantiate the relevance of his case in the context of O. I, R. 10, C.P.C.

Revision petition was dismissed.

In the absence of a necessary party, no effective decree or order can be passed.

In absence of necessary party, no effective decree or order can be passed.

Application under O. I, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was moved by the plaintiff contending that appellant be added as a defendant to the suit as he (appellant ) had allegedly purchased suit-property

Appellant opposed the application by rendering counter affidavit, however, Court accepted said application in the absence of appellant at the time of arguments

Held, that while making an order under sub-Rule (2) of R. 10 of O. I of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the main criteria should be whether or not the presence of the person, who was seeking to be added as a party or whose addition was sought by any of the parties, was necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit effectively and completely

Court, before adding any personas a party to suit, had to ensure that the suit could not proceed in his absence nor the question involved therein could be decided effectively and completely in his absence

Application under R. 10 of O. I of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was allowed, in the present case, on the sole ground that the suit-property had been sold to him (appellant) by the defendant's mother, thus concluding him (appellant) as a necessary party

Said order was passed admittedly in the absence of the appellant, without affording him an opportunity of hearing

Court, in the impugned order, had not considered/decided the question as to whether the appellant was to be deemed as a necessary party by purchasing the suit-property when the suit was not pending whereas said point/question, inter alia, was specifically raised by the appellant in his counter affidavit

Addition of a person as a defendant in a suit, without his consent and despite his opposition, cast a heavy responsibility and duty upon him to defend the suit by going through the rigors of formal and lengthy court proceedings, by facing consequences of such proceedings and also by incurring heavy expenses

If appellant, had opposed his addition as a party to the proceedings, a fair opportunity of hearing should have been given to him

Fate of the application under R. 10 of O. I of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, ought to have been decided after hearing the appellant, especially when he was on notice and he had filed a detailed counter affidavit to oppose the said application

Impugned order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh, in circumstances

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

No writ can be issued in absence of a necessary party.

No writ can be issued in the absence of a necessary party.

Necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.

Petitioner had submitted his blank/incomplete tender application form before the relevant authority for different works which were forthwith rejected, whereas, the tendering process had been completed

Project was allotted in favour of four different contractors

Petitioner had failed to array the contractors' as parties in the writ petition

Contractors were necessary parties being beneficiaries

This sole ground was suffice for dismissal of the writ petition along with other reasons

Writ petition was dismissed.

No effective order or decision can be rendered in absence of a necessary party.

Neither the petitioners nor the respondents had produced any evidence to prove that they were actual owners of the disputed properties

Petitioners had arrayed the Member Board of Revenue and Tehsildar as defendants in their plaint but had not arrayed the Provincial Government through its Secretary as necessary party in the plaint

Suit in respect of the unsettled land in the absence of Government as the Provincial or Federal was not maintainable as contemplated under Art. 174 of the Constitution and S.79 of C.P.C.

Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by petitioners

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Any person can be impleaded as party, whose presence is considered to be essential for "just decision" of the case and in whose absence no effective adjudication can be carried on.

Petitioner assailed the dismissal of his application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C., by the District Judge while exercising revisional jurisdiction

Contention of petitioner was that he was the subsequent purchaser of the suit property, therefore, for all intents and purposes he was a necessary party

Contention of respondent was that transfer of the suit property took place during pendency of litigation

Validity

Petitioner and other transferees were in possession of the suit property pursuant to the transfer, as such, they would be effected by the decree of the Court, thus, fairness demanded that they were a "necessary party"

Constitutional petition was allowed, order passed by District Judge was set aside and that of trial court was restored with the modification that all transferees be impleaded as defendants in the suit.

Any order made or a decree passed by the Member, Board of Revenue would be deemed to be an order or decree of the Board of Revenue

Petitioners were supposed to have impleaded Board of Revenue as a party in the writ petition instead of Member, Board of Revenue alone

Court while exercising writ jurisdiction or even in an appeal had powers to implead the necessary party for doing complete justice but petitioners were negligent in prosecuting their case and they were not entitled to discretionary relief after a period of four years

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity

No legal question of law of public importance was involved in the petition

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

When it was pleaded in a suit that with the connivance of the revenue officials any mutation was got attested and the same was challenged through a civil suit, the Provincial Government as well as the revenue officials against whom the connivance for attestation of the mutation was alleged, were necessary parties in the suit

When plaintiff alleged connivance of the said officials of Revenue Department with the defendants of the suit for getting a mutation attested, then without participation of the said officials, no valid adjudication could be carried out against them and no finding (of connivance) could be recorded against them in their absence.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

None of the parties for whom land was acquired and in whose favour award had been issued were given notice by the Referee Judge

High Court had fell in error and mistake of fact while recording the findings in the impugned judgment

Service of notice upon Collector Land Acquisition did not mean that all other persons had become irrelevant or their names should be deleted

Water and Power Development Authority and others for whom land was acquired and award was issued were arrayed as defendants in the reference

Referee Judge deleted their names suo motu; neither notices had been issued to them nor they had been provided an opportunity of hearing before conclusion of proceedings of reference

Proceedings in the reference had been conducted without providing opportunity of hearing to the necessary party in circumstances

Principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem had, therefore, been violated

No one should suffer for any act or omission of the Court or its official

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside

Case was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed but Trial Court passed decree for partition without any prayer for partition

Applicants moved an application objecting to the final decree for partition on the ground that neither they were party to the original suit nor they had been allowed to associate in the proceedings but same was dismissed

Validity

Decree for partition was passed but same was only inter se the parties to the suit

When there was no prayer for partition then decree for partition could not be passed

When applicants were held to be necessary party then why they were not impleaded as party

If applicants appeared in the Court and requested for objecting to proceedings then they should have been given proper opportunity of hearing

Court could pass a decree for partition in favour and against the parties but not against any person who was not the party

Impugned orders were set aside to the extent of applicants but remaining proceedings inter se were not disturbed having been satisfied

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner/intervener moved application for impleadment as plaintiff on the ground that he had acquired all rights and interests of deceased plaintiff in respect of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed between him and deceased plaintiff

Validity

Nothing was on record that suit property had been transferred in the name of deceased plaintiff

Plaintiff had claimed right and title in the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale

Sale agreement did not confer any legal right or title until it was enforced through decree of the Court and sale deed was executed

No legal right devolved in favour of petitioner/intervener

Deceased plaintiff was not competent or qualified to transfer suit property to anyone including the petitioner

Execution of alleged agreement of sale/assignment on the part of deceased plaintiff in favour of petitioner/intervener was not enforceable under the law

Petitioner/intervener could not be accepted and recognized as necessary or proper party in absence of legal right and character

Petitioner/intervener could not be treated as a substitute of deceased plaintiff in the suit

No interest had been created in favour of petitioner/intervener

Petitioner was not legal heir of deceased plaintiff

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court

Trial Court was directed to take legal action/steps as per law for joining the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

After surrender of rights in favour of petitioner, interveners had no character in title of leasing, having no locus standi to be impleaded as necessary party

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of employees was that Chairman Ehtesab Bureau had no power to terminate their services as appointing authority was the President

Writ petitions filed by the employee were dismissed by the High Court

Validity

Any order passed by the Chairman would be deemed to be the order of Ehtesab Bureau

Powers for appointment against the posts of officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau were exercise-able by the Ehtesab Bureau

Such powers would vest in the Chairman who should exercise the same and might delegate such powers to any of the officers

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau passed the termination order and he had been arrayed as party in the line of respondent

Ehtesab Bureau was not a juristic person and it was not necessary to array the same as respondent

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau was the necessary party but not the Ehtesab Bureau

Appointment orders of the employees were made by the President with the condition that same would be temporary in nature

Temporary appointment did not confer any right for permanent induction

President was to make Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and were to be consistent with the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Act, 2001

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 had not been made by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice of High Court which were not valid having no legal value

President had no power to frame Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 without the consultation of Chief Justice of High Court

Said Rules, were not a statutory provision and had no legal force

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau had powers only to appoint the officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau when petitioners were appointed

President had no power on the relevant date to appoint a person in the Ehtesab Bureau

Person who had not come in the court with clean hands had no right to maintain a writ petition

Appointment order of employees being an ill-gotten gain, writ could not be issued for retention of ill-gotten gain

Writ petitions of employees before the High Court were liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground

Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Person who was not "customer" of financial institution, could not be impleaded.

Financial institution filed suit against borrower for its failure to repay demand finance facility and sister-concern of borrower was also impleaded as a defendant

Validity

Nothing was attributed to sister-concern in plaint and there was no document available at plaint to connect it with loan facility

Plaint simply stated that it was a sister-concern of borrower having same directors as borrower

Sister-concern did not come within the definition of 'customer' as defined in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Name of sister concern was ordered to be struck off from the array of defendants

Finance facilities and amounts thereof were admitted by defendants

Claim of Bank was substantiated by finance agreements and other documents available on record together with statements of accounts

Defendants failed to raise any dispute on facts requiring recording of evidence

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

Plea raised by plaintiff was that subsequent purchasers could not file appeal against judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

Validity

Appellants before Lower Appellate Court were subsequent purchasers of suit property and question as to whether they were bona fide purchasers of suit property could only be decided if they were impleaded as defendants in the suit

Appellants before Lower Appellate Court claimed that they purchased the property through sale mutation after due verification of ownership of defendants, as their names were duly incorporated in record of rights and there was no restraining order on record whereby property could not be shown to be under any lien

Appellants were legally entitled to file appeal before the lower Appellate Court against judgment and decree passed by Trial Court.

Plaintiff could not get decree of possession without a mechanism provided under Ss.32 & 34 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Trial Court had not passed a specific decree rather a contingent decree for possession was passed subject to allotment of land by the Revenue authorities

Decree passed by the Trial Court was not a judicial verdict as Court was to pass a specific decree without any ambiguity

Revision was dismissed circumstances.

Custodian of record of rights could not be termed to be a party in whose absence a legal and effective judgment could be passed when dispute/questions were in between the private parties without any specific allegation of fraud or illegality in maintaining the record of rights.

Writ petition without arraying functionary who had passed an order against a party in the line of respondent was not competent

Basic order in the present case had been passed by the Rent Controller who was a necessary party and without arraying him as party in the line of respondents writ petition was not maintainable

Appellate Court had not passed the original order which was passed by the Rent Controller

Rent Controller was necessary party in the present case

No illegality was found in the impugned order passed by the High Court

Tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of demised premises to the landlord within specified period and he was also directed to pay rent till eviction of demised premises

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit property was of registered Anjuman (society), therefore, non-impleading the Anjuman was a fatal defect on the part of plaintiff.

No effective order can be passed in absence of necessary party.

Suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction and damages was pending when predecessor-in-interest of petitioners filed application to be impleaded on the plea that he was a necessary party

Application was allowed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed the same

Validity

Relinquishment deed was a registered document which was executed in year, 2005 after an order was passed by High Court in an application, while application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. was moved in year, 2010

In the meanwhile petitioners remained silent and did not question the order or execution of relinquishment deed rather predecessor-in-interest of petitioners admitted its execution expressing his no concern with subject property in rent case filed against its tenants

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of appellant was that he was in possession of suit property, while plaintiff and defendant in collusion and in order to deprive him of his valuable rights in suit property filed the suit

Validity

While considering application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. the Court had to minutely examine peculiar facts of each case and after satisfying as to whether or not an applicant had made out a case to be impleaded as party, either as plaintiff or as defendant, as the case might be, could pass necessary orders by allowing or refusing such request

Appellant was not stepping into the shoes of defendant nor of substitution as defendant, who was contesting suit filed by plaintiff

Defendant had filed written statement, wherein he accused plaintiff of even forging his signatures

Division Bench of High Court, at such stage, declined to give any observation that there was any element of collusion or connivance between plaintiff and defendant, as alleged by appellant and nothing had been brought on record to show so as to corroborate such allegation

Order passed by Single Judge dismissing application of appellant did not suffer from any factual or legal error

Single Judge had exercised discretion vested in it properly by keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Division Bench declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Necessary party was the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree could not be passed by the court.

Person claiming to be impleaded as party on the ground that he had purchased rented property was not necessary party to be impleaded in rent proceedings.

Person claiming to be impleaded as party on the ground that he had purchased rented property, was not necessary party to be impleaded in rent proceedings.

Party whose presence before the Court was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions could be termed as a "necessary party", whereas a party whose presence before Court was essential for adjudication of all issues involved in a suit was called "proper party".

Petitioner was ex-wife of landlord and she claimed to be owner of premises and her suit for declaration against her ex-husband (landlord) was pending before civil court

Application for becoming party to ejectment proceedings was dismissed by Rent Controller and the same was maintained by Lower Appellate court

Validity

No case for interference in concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below was made out

Petitioner had no locus standi whatsoever to file appeal against ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, which order was not assailed by both the parties contesting rent proceedings

Petitioner claiming herself to be owner of premises, filed appeal before Lower Appellate Court, which had rightly been dismissed by said court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Lower Appellate Court dismissed application on the ground that applicant failed to file any proof of purchase of property in question from defendant and the application was filed at belated stage when judgment had already been passed

Validity

Powers conferred upon court under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. could be exercised by Court at any time and any stage of proceedings, if presence of party was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle questions involved

Mere delay in making application was not sufficient to dismiss application without examining gist of right or claim compelled a party to move application for becoming a party to safeguard his right and interest

Petitioner claimed to be proper and necessary party on the basis of document produced by him, it would be in the interest of justice that a chance should have been afforded to him to submit the documents before Lower Appellate Court to decide the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.

High Court set aside the order passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the case to Lower Appellate Court to consider entire material produced by petitioner and to decide the application afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.