Necessary Parties

Every joint owner, at the time of partition proceedings is a necessary party, irrespective of being placed in the column of ownership or cultivation and his rights are to be protected and safeguarded accordingly.

Petitioners-plaintiffs assailed partition proceedings initiated by revenue authorities on the plea that they were owners of land in question and were not joined in partition proceedings by revenue authorities as their names were not incorporated in column of ownership

Validity

Revenue authorities failed to comply with the provisions of S.137 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, which had provided that after receipt of partition application, Revenue Officer had to issue notices to recorded co-sharers, who were not joined in the application

Where allegations of lack of jurisdiction or mala fide were attributed to the authority passing order in question, Civil Courts could examine such matter under the provision of S.9, C.P.C. as a Court of ultimate jurisdiction

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to revenue authorities for fresh partition proceedings

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners / defendants sought review of order passed by Chief Court whereby it had directed the plaintiffs to implead the Provincial Government and its departments as defendants under O.I, R.10(2), C.P.C.

Contention of petitioners was that the impugned order was passed in their absence and that no order against the interest of any person could be passed without giving him an opportunity for explaining his position

Validity

Provincial Government and its concerned departments were necessary parties to the suit and without impleading them no effective decree could be passed in the matter

Review petition was not maintainable as its main aim was correction of errors in the judgment and not correction of wrong decisions

Court could not hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment

Review petition was dismissed.

Petitioner claimed relief with regard to increase in pay, pension, promotion, transfer as well as his status under which he was to be proceeded with for disciplinary proceedings by the Department

Validity

Petitioner was employee of T&T Department, which was converted into Corporation by virtue of S.3 of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991

Rights relating to the terms and conditions of services of such employees were guaranteed under S.9(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, which could not be varied by the Corporation to their disadvantage

Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation was converted into Company under Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996

Sections 35(2) & 36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, further extended protection to the terms and conditions of services of the employees transferred from Corporation to Company

Petitioner was present in service therefore, relief sought by him regarding pension was premature

Sections 3 to 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 were the relevant sections under which disciplinary action could be taken against the petitioner

Petitioner, for his claim of promotion, though filed certain appointment orders of the employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, but none of them were impleaded as party, therefore, in absence of necessary parties no adverse order was permissible under law

Petitioner had remedy to first approach the Department for his due promotion or any of his grievance relating to transfer or disciplinary proceedings

Petitioner had alternate and efficacious remedy to approach the competent authority in respect of his claim of pay equal to civil servants

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

In case of filing a suit by Trust, since other trustees can authorize one trustee to act on their behalf, that suit can be maintained even without presence of all trustees as plaintiffs.

Insurance company cannot be made party in a recovery suit.

No condition has been imposed under S.12(2), C.P.C. that all person interested in getting decree set aside must join proceedings

Every person is allowed under S.12(2), C.P.C. to challenge validity of judgment and decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs/petitioners filed application under O.I, R.10(2) and O.VI, R.17 and S.151, C.P.C., praying for two distinct and separate remedies First remedy was for adding Government and Collector as defendants in the plaint; and second was for amendment in the plaint

Appellate Court, instead of passing distinct and separate orders on both the said two remedies, mingled up the two remedies, and passed the impugned order

Suit of the plaintiffs was based on a compromise, and decree

Both the compromise and decree were regarding government land, but Government and Collector, had not been impleaded to the suit

Once it was admitted that the land, which was subject matter of the suit as well as the previous suit, that entailed to the compromise and decree; both the Government and the Collector, were necessary parties to the case

Amendment of the plaint was an alternate relief

Appellate Court, had not based the impugned order on any genuine ground, but had simply dismissed the same holding that said application was filed just to linger on the litigation

Appellate Court, was legally bound to take up every proposed amendment for discussion

Propriety, or otherwise of the proposed amendment, must have been discussed distinctly, in the light of the law governing amendments

Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings, was very rarely a ground for turning down the proposed amendment, if otherwise same was genuine

Adding the Provincial Government and the Collector to the plaint was necessary

Appellate Court was directed for hearing the parties afresh; and pass appropriate order after hearing parties.

Petitioner claimed to be lawful tenant of shop in question and was aggrieved of dispossession order passed by Additional Sessions Judge

Validity

Continuous defiance of Court orders and alleged simultaneous dispossession first on 12-1-2011, second on 11-7-2012 and then on 4-3-2013

Petitioner admitted fact of having possession of shop in question which was taken over by police in pursuance to order of Additional Sessions Judge

Petitioner also claimed to have possession of the shop since 11-7-2012 and it was the date when allegedly owner was dispossessed second time

Petitioner was a necessary party to be impleaded as respondent to second complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as he was admitting possession of shop in question since 11-7-2012, the date of alleged second dispossession

High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with second complaint of the owner, after arraying petitioner as one of the respondents

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Plea of the defendants (employees of Bank) that they had been added unnecessarily in the proceedings as they could not be joined as defendants in Banking suit and that they be deleted from the array of defendants and matter might be proceeded against the Banking Company/Financial Institution

Plaint(ff asserted that there was no bar of joinder of other parties apart from the Financial Institution and the customer

Validity

Suit had been filed under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which provided a procedure under S.9 of the Ordinance

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were applicable in Banking suit where Ordinance was silent

Section 9 of the Ordinance provided procedure and joinder of defendants was in violation of provision of S.9(1) of the Ordinance, presence of defendants/employees of the Bank, in the proceedings was unnecessary

High Court directed office to delete the names of defendants from the array of defendants with RED INK.

Incident had taken place within the premises of Petrol Station and breaking of high-tension electricity cables were caused by the entering of truck

Both persons that is, owner of the petrol pump and driver/owner of the truck had not been impleaded in the suit

Effect

Objection by defendants that without impleading owner of the petrol pump and driver/owner of the truck, the suit was liable to be dismissed, was not sustainable.

Plaintiffs arrayed all responsible persons including government official who allegedly cleared documents of vessel, the vessel owner, the surveyor company and others as proper and necessary parties

Plaintiff based their case on the principle of joint tort feasors and vicarious liability and intended to implead "Bureau Veritas" as party to proceedings

Effect

Plaintiffs were at liberty to implead defendants, allegedly found negligent in performance of their duties

It would be seen after evidence that how many persons were involved and committed negligence in performance of their duties due to which the incident took place

High Court found it appropriate to implead 'Bureau Veritas' as defendant in the suit

Application was allowed accordingly.

Restitution can be ordered against the person who benefited under such order or decree as well as his transferee or assignee, even though such person may not have been party to the proceedings in which such order or decree was varied or set aside.

Applicants alleged that after having obtained financial loans from different financial institutions, petitioner, either disposed of their respective properties or in any other manner had managed to avoid repayment of loan amounts with mark-up thereon

Objection raised by petitioners was that impleading of applicants as party to petition filed by them would amount to accepting their pleas

Validity

Impleading applicants as respondents would never mean to say that pleas raised by them stood accepted but on the contrary such pleas would be subject to proof thereof strictly in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Even though the applicants might not be proper as well as necessary parties, yet for the purpose that they might properly assist the court to dispose of constitutional petition in a proper manner, High Court allowed them to be impleaded as respondents in the petition

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Office-bearers of the petitioner assailed the award before Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but remained unsuccessful

Later on decree making award rule of the Court was sought to be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the same office-bearers in the name of petitioner, which application was dismissed by Trial Court and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Plea raised by petitioner was that it was a necessary party but was not made party during arbitration proceedings

Validity

Issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary party had already been decided by the Courts below and therefore, petitioner was not an aggrieved party and had no locus standi to file revision petition

Petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Lower Appellate Court

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

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant sought deletion of his name from plaint on the ground that he had paid the share of plaintiff in the suit property who had executed sale deed in his favour

Plea raised by applicant was that plaintiff did not have any cause of action either against applicant or against his property

Validity

Plaintiff had received her share in the property and had executed a registered document in favour of applicant during the pendency of suit

Plaintiff was left with no right and interest in the property and had no cause of action against applicant

High Court struck off the name of applicant from the array of defendants and property of applicant was deleted from the plaint

Application was allowed in circumstances.

If in absence of a person no effective decree or order can be passed in the suit such person is a necessary party and the suit cannot proceed in his absence

Requirement of addition of a party in the suit would be essential if in absence of such party the adjudication of the dispute is not possible

Legal heirs in a civil suit to recover the amount of debt due are necessary party but a stranger in such a suit is neither a necessary nor a proper party

If a dispute in a suit can effectively be adjudicated in absence of a person, such person is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.

Order challenged in writ jurisdiction without impleading those students who were to be affected if petitioners were to succeed

High Court held,, that petitioners were not entitled to seek relief without impleading those who were to be affected even though Court, held, that their admissions were not to be disturbed

View upheld by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused.

S. 25-A-Grievance petition-Necessary parties-Relief can be sought only against such person who is competent and authorised to grant same or implement directions of Court-Petition against removal from service for misconduct-Charge-sheet served by General Manager of Mills and enquiry conducted by Administrative Officer-Findings of enquiry submitted to General Manager and termination of service decided and ordered by Management but termination order issued by Administrative Officer- Petition impleading only Administrative Officer, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.

Necessary Parties -Proceedings on a petition for writ of quo warranto against the appointment, as Chief Minister of a Province, of a person who was under a disqualification imposed under S. 3 of the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act, 1949 but the period of whose disqualification was curtailed by an amending order of the Governor-General-Whether the Province or the Federation are necessary or proper parties to proceedings.

Necessary Parties Necessary parties-Order of ejectment issued by Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner under instructions of Central and Provincial Governments-Contested by writ petition Central or Provincial Government not necessary party.