Impleadment of a party

2020 YLR 461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 52Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Suit for specific performance of contractAppealSubsequent sale of suit landImpleadment of a partyLis pendens, principle ofApplicability

Suit was dismissed against which an appeal was filed wherein an application was moved for impleadment as a party on the ground that petitioner had purchased the suit property

Appellate Court accepted the said application and case was remanded for de novo trial

Validity

Rule of lis pendens was based upon the principle that it would be impossible that any action or suit could be brought to a successful termination if the alienation pendente lite was permitted to prevail and subsequent transferee was allowed to set out his own independent case even of being the bona fide transferee against the succeeding party of the matter and asked for the commencement of de novo proceedings so as to defeat the claim which had been settled by a final judicial verdict

Petitioner was not necessary party to the appeal or suit and appeal could have been decided without impleading him

Impugned judgment was set aside and application for impleadment as a party was dismissed

Matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for decision of appeal afresh in accordance with law

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 CLCN 45 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2) & O. I, R. 10Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petition filed on behalf of dead personMaintainabilityImpleadment of a partyEffectFraud and misrepresentationLimitationOrder, setting aside ofScopeProvisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908Applicability to constitutional petitionScopeConstitutional petition was filed on behalf of dead person through her attorney

Contention of applicant was that impugned order had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and dead petitioner could not be replaced by a new petitioner

Validity

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were applicable to the constitutional petition

Section 12(2) being part of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was applicable to the constitutional petition

Attorney of dead petitioner had not disclosed her death in the memo of constitutional petition

Impugned orders obtained in the constitutional petition by way of fraud and misrepresentation were illegal and nullity in law and void ab initio

No period of limitation did run against such void orders

Dead petitioner in the constitutional petition was replaced by a new petitioner but factum of her death was not disclosed to the Court

Fraud and misrepresentation had been played upon the Court in circumstances

Constitutional petition filed on behalf of dead person through her attorney was nullity in the eye of law

Impugned order passed in the constitutional petition was result of fraud and misrepresentation and same was void ab initio having no legal effect

General power of attorney in the present case did not confer any right on the attorney to alienate the principal's property in his name

Court in a proceedings filed on behalf of a dead person had no jurisdiction to grant an application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C.

Fraud and misrepresentation would vitiate the most solemn proceedings

Court even suo motu could set aside such orders which had been obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation

Constitutional petition was not only nullity but also incompetent and same was liable to be dismissed

Impugned orders passed in the constitutional petition were set aside

Petition was accepted, in circumstances.

2020 CLC 1472 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

O.I, R.10Suit for declaration and permanent injunctionImpleadment of a partySuit was dismissed by the Trial Court against which an appeal was filedPlaintiffs moved an application before the Appellate Court to add defendants in the suitAppellate Court accepted the said applicationValidityProposed defendants were necessary and proper parties to the suit and they might be impleaded in the same

Trial Court or Appellate Court had ample power to allow such proposed defendants to be impleaded in the suit if they had some right or interest in the subject matter or cause of action

Courts had discretion to add the parties at any stage of proceedings to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to arrive at fair and correct conclusion

Appellate Court had not committed any irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned order

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 65 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10 (2)Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4Suit for possession through partitionImpleadment of a partyDiscretion of CourtExercise ofScopePetition for impleadment of party was moved which was accepted by the Trial CourtValidity

Plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis might choose the persons against whom he wished to litigate and could not be compelled to sue a person against his wishes

Discretion under O. I, R. 10(2), C.P.C. could be exercised either suo motu or on the application of plaintiff or defendant or application of a person who was not a party to the suit

Court could add any one as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it found that he was necessary or proper party

Trial Court without having any supporting document had passed the impugned order at premature stage

Impugned order was not sustainable in circumstances

Applicant after filing relevant documents might file fresh application for impleadment as a party

Impugned order was set aside and application for impleadment of party was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.