Impleading of party

2020 YLR 1294 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10Impleading of partyPartition of propertyDispute on title

Grievance of petitioner was that both the Courts below declined to implead him as party to the suit for partition filed by respondents

Plea raised by respondents was that they were legal heirs of deceased owner of suit property and document relied upon by petitioner was fake and forged

Validity

Petitioner claimed declaration to the effect that he be declared owner and in alternative he claimed specific performance

Alleged agreement was not attested by any close relative of deceased owner of property and neither brother nor husband were shown to be witnesses and presence of any male member was not claimed

All such factors raised number of questions which would be attended by court ceased to suit for declaration

Till such time that suit of petitioner was decreed and he was declared to be owner, he could not claim any propriety interest in property so as to plead his entitlement for becoming party to partition suit

Necessary party was one without whom no decree could be passed or who was bound to be affected by decree

Petitioner in peculiar circumstances was neither necessary nor proper party and there were serious doubts as to genuineness of claim

Suit was filed by petitioner which was still for declaration and specific performance meant that petitioner was praying for a decree which was not passed in his favour

Co-owners of property who were necessary and proper parties were already impleaded and for petitioner, he had no title in property and was struggling for declaration in his suit

For shareholders in a joint property, in suit for partition, only subsisting owners of property were necessary and proper party

Impleading of petitioner at such a stage would result in extraneous issues which were not subject matter of suit for partition

Till petitioner had not succeeded in proving that agreement was actually executed by deceased and gift was made, he could not claim to either a co-sharer or a holder of title in property

For suit for partition presence of petitioner was neither necessary nor proper

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court dismissing application of petitioner under O.I, R.10, C.P.C.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 MLD 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSuit for declarationImpleading of partyLis pendens, doctrine ofApplicability

Husband of the plaintiff transferred some land out of the suit land vide exchange-deed to respondent and from that land the other respondent who was one of the legal heirs of the deceased vendee, sold some property to the petitioner vide agreement to sell

Petitioner purchased the property during pendency of the suit, without seeking leave of the court as required by S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Petitioner being a transferee pendente lite without leave of the court could not as of right seek impleading as party in the suit which was pending since 1992

Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for rejecting joinder, stating that suit was long pending since 1992 and was fixed for final arguments, and prima facie the action of alienation did not appear to be bona fide

No absolute rule that transferee pendente lite, without leave of the court should in all cases be allowed to join and contest the pending suit

Authority or order of the court having not been obtained for alienation of the property in favour of the petitioner, alienation, was hit by doctrine of lis pendens

Petitioner, in circumstances, could not be considered to be either necessary or proper party to the suit

Trial Court had rightly exercised the discretion in rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleading him as party in the suit.

2009 YLR 845 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. I, Rr.3, 10 & S.35-AImpleading of partyImposition of special costs

Counsel for defendant made an oral motion that said defendant could be deleted from the list of defendants as said defendant had been wrongly impleaded as a defendant in the suit

Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that he had made the said defendant as party in the case because the office of another defendant was situated in the building owned by said defendant and that Administrator of said defendant was also the Chairman of another defendant

Grievance of the plaintiff was against another defendant which had jurisdiction over the area where the property of the plaintiff was situated

Oral motion of the counsel for said defendant was granted and office was directed to strike off the name of said defendant from the array of the defendants

Every counsel has duty to check' the law and file the suit against appropriate persons and not implead parties unnecessarily thereby causing them unnecessary harassment and inconvenience

Counsel for the plaintiff did not carry out proper inquiry and impleaded said defendant on frivolous grounds when it had nothing whatsoever to do with the property in question

Plaintiff in circum­stances would pay special costs of Rs.10, 000 under S.35-A, C.P. C. to the said defendant.