Misjoinder of parties

2023 PLD 174 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 99 & O.I, R. 10Misjoinder of partiesCurable defect

Misjoinder of parties is an error that does not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court as provided in section 99, C.P.C., and is a procedural error which can be cured by striking out the names of such parties under Rule 10 of Order I, C.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings of the case, including the appellate or revisional stage.

2020 CLC 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. I, Rr. 3 & 10-Necessary party to a suitMisjoinder of partiesImpleadment of parties to a suitStriking out name of a partyExercise of discretion under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C.Principles

Question as to who amongst several defendants to a suit was liable to be made subject of a decree at culmination of such suit, would not be relevant enough for purpose of ascertaining status of parties to a suit

Any party who was necessary or proper could be joined in proceedings and a necessary party was one which opted to have been joined and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed

Proper party was one whose presence before Trial Court was necessary in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in a suit

For purpose of adding or striking out a party from a suit, outcome of such suit was immaterial qua the party seeking such addition or striking out

Powers under O.I., R.10, C.P.C. were discretionary and exercise of such powers was to be done by Trial Court after due diligence.

2020 PLD 415 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 42 & 54Necessary party to a suitMisjoinder of partiesImpleadment of partiesStriking out name of partyExercise of discretion under O. I, R.10, C.P.C.

Suit for declaration, specific performance of contract and permanent injunction filed by customer/plaintiff against international/foreign vehicle manufacturer and its local agent/ representative after non-delivery of vehicle purchased by plaintiff

Defendant international/foreign manufacturer impugned order of Trial Court whereby its application for deletion of its name from list of defendants, was rejected

Question before High Court was whether foreign/international manufacturer of imported vehicle was necessary party to suit when contract sought to be enforced was between plaintiff and local agent/seller of vehicle

Held, that issues in suit were yet to be framed and parties were not yet examined, and when it was found that local agent was looking after affairs of international manufacturer in Pakistan, hence international manufacturer could not claim to be aloof from suit when prayers in suit had also been made with regard to suspension of trade licence and agency of local manufacturer

Local agent and international/foreign manufacturer had direct nexus and concern with delivery of said vehicle when defendants had relationship of manufacturer and representative

Proper parties were those which had some benefit in respect of dispute between parties or person who had some interest in subject-matter of suit

High Court held that international manufacturer was proper and necessary party to suit

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 MLD 1428 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10Suit for declaration and injunctionHigh Court appealThirty years old documentPresumptionMisjoinder of partiesPlaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of 'Deed of Disclaimer' issued by company

Single Judge of High Court dismissed the suit on ground that original 'Deed of Disclaimer' was not produced and company or its Directors were not made party

Validity

'Deed of Disclaimer' was executed about more than 53 years back and since then none had challenged the same

Presumption of genuineness, under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was attached to a document which was more than 30 years old

When there was no adverse claim and during such a long period none of the directors or their legal heirs had ever disputed the 'Deed of Disclaimer', therefore, it could be presumed that the document was genuine

'Deed of Disclaimer' was produced in Court by proper party and one of the marginal witness supported the same

Non-existent company and its Directors could not be made party to the litigation

Party to litigation could not be defeated or failed just because of non-joinder of the parties

Company was not in existence as during its life time the company had relinquished its rights over the subject property in favour of plaintiff and the same was evident from the language of the 'Disclaimer Deed'

Intention of the Deed was to pass on the title to plaintiff and had created right of ownership regarding subject property in favour of plaintiff

When no one had challenged the right of plaintiff on suit property there remained no hurdle to declare that the title of suit property in favour of plaintiff was established

Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

High Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10(2)Misjoinder of partiesApplication for striking out the name of improper partyScope

Application for striking/deleting the name of party could be filed at any stage of the proceedings, but such leniency provided under the law was only exercisable, when it transpired that something new had been developed in the proceedings and for a proper appraisal and adjudication of the case, the addition and/or deletion of the parties was unavoidable

Court had to minutely examine the pecuniary facts of each case and after satisfying itself, as to whether the case for deleting/striking out of the name had been made out in the matter, pass necessary orders by allowing such request

Court had to see and examine the averments made in the plaint primarily to decide this aspect of the case, as there was no standard rule or procedure laid down, except to examine the contents of the plaint and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2014 CLC 561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10(2)Misjoinder of partiesStriking out the name of partyScope

Plaintiff/ employee of private Bank was dismissed from service on the basis of audit report issued by State Bank/defendant/ applicant

Plaintiff filed suit for damages and arrayed the State Bank of Pakistan as defendant along with employer Bank

Applicant/State Bank of Pakistan filed application for deleting its name from array of defendants

Contention of the applicant/State Bank was that the plaintiff was employee of private Bank, therefore the applicant could not be subjected to any claim of damages

Validity

Plaintiff was dismissed from service on the basis of report issued by defendant/applicant (State Bank of Pakistan)

Defendant/employer had categorically stated that they had relied upon the report of State Bank

Claim of the plaintiff was based upon the inspection report of State Bank and as such his presence was necessary and things would only be crystallized after completion of the evidence of State Bank

Application for striking/deleting the name of defendant/applicant (State Bank) was dismissed.