Parties to Suit
Parties to Suit legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Intervener under the provisions of O. I, R.10(2), C.P.C., can be impleaded as a party only when either it is a necessary or a proper party
Necessary party is one in whose absence no effective adjudication can take place or decree passed.
Petitioners filed application under O. I, R.10(2), C.P.C., on the ground that their land was included in the suit land by the plaintiffs but they were not impleaded as defendants in the suit with mala fide intention
Validity
Petitioners had not annexed any valid document with the petition to show their ownership of the suit land
Application was filed by the petitioners after about 6 years of the filing of the suit
Petitioners were neither necessary nor proper party to the suit, effective decree in their absence could be competently passed
Petition was dismissed.
Such was not a case of private ownership rather pertained to shamilat deh wherein all owners were necessary parties and in their absence no effective decree could be passed regarding ownership and possessory rights.
Only natural or juristic person can sue or be sued in its own name.
Suit was bad for non-joinder of parties, and no decree could be passed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of disputed Shamilat property.
Plaintiff filed suit for damages against defendants, foreign companies, and the other defendants, who were franchise holder of said companies, for loss caused due to violation of Letter of Intent
Trial Court, while declining applications of plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and attachment of franchise fee, deleted names of defendants, franchise holders, from the suit; revisional court maintained the order of Trial Court
Plaintiff contended that defendants, foreign companies, were doing business abroad and were not maintaining assets in Pakistan, except the franchise fee payable by defendants (franchise holders) which, be attached till pendency of the suit to make recovery of damages possible in case decree was passed
Validity
Names of defendants, franchise holder, had already been deleted from array of defendants; thus, case of plaintiff to the extent of attachment of franchise fee before judgment could not proceed
Plaintiff had claimed damages only against defendants, foreign companies
Plaintiff, in case a decree was passed, might file application for execution of decree
Suit having not been decreed restraining order could not be passed on probability
Appeal against order was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiff filed suit for damages against defendants, foreign companies, and the other defendants, who were franchise holder of said companies, for loss caused due to violation of Letter of Intent
Trial Court, while declining applications of plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and attachment of franchise fee, deleted names of defendants, franchise holders, from the suit; revisional court maintained the order of Trial Court
Plaintiff contended that defendants, foreign companies, were doing business abroad and were not maintaining assets in Pakistan, except the franchise fee payable by defendants (franchise holders) which be attached till pendency of the suit to make recovery of damages possible in case decree was passed
Validity
Names of defendants, franchise holders, had already been deleted from array of defendants; thus, case of plaintiff to the extent of attachment of franchise fee before judgment could not proceed
Plaintiff had claimed damages only against defendants, foreign companies
Plaintiff, in case a decree was passed, might file application for execution of decree for attachment or execution of decree against the franchise fee
Restraining order, as the suit had not been decreed so far, could also not be passed on probability
Appeal against order was dismissed in circumstances.
'Necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party, and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by the court, and if a necessary party is not impleaded, then the suit itself is liable to be dismissed
'Proper party' is a person, who though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence can enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he does not need to be a person, in favour of or against whom, the decree is to be made.
Question was as to whether the doctrine of privity of contract barred the plaintiff's action to implead the Reinsurer (Swiss Re) as a necessary or proper party
General rule as to impleadment of parties was that the plaintiff, being 'dominus litis', chose persons against whom he wished to litigate; however, said rule was subject to the provisions of O. I, R. 10, C.P.C., which gave discretion to the court to add any person who was found to be a 'necessary party' or 'proper party'
Plaintiff was not party to the contract with the reinsurer and his claim was not even remotely related with Swiss re
Plaintiff intended to join Swiss Re on the apprehension that in case its claim was decreed against the defendant, and the defendant was not in a position to pay the same, and the defendant succeeded in its reinsurance claim (against Swiss Re), then the money so received by the defendant might be attached by the plaintiff in the garnishee proceedings; said claim could not be held to be remotely connected with the plaintiff's claim against the defendant
Persons indirectly or remotely interested were neither 'necessary' nor 'proper' parties
Indemnity reinsurance agreement conferred no rights on the insured unless the language of the reinsurance contract clearly expressed the intent on part of the reinsurer to be directly liable to the insured
Plaintiff, being an insured, had no direct access to the funds of the reinsurer (Swiss Re), and as no privity of contract between a reinsurer and the insured existed and both operated under different contracts (though with the same insurer) giving rise to situation where, while the insured might succeed against the insurer; however, claim of the insurer against the reinsurer might fail, against which remedial actions would be available to the insurer and not to the insured, as there were inter se veils between these three players
Dispute between the plaintiff/Insured and the defendant/Insurer could effectively be decreed even if the reinsurer (Swiss Re) was not impleaded as a party; therefore, Swiss Re could not be held to be a necessary party
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Such rule was not applicable to the case when "death certificate" did not inspire confidence.
Plaintiff filed suit claiming that he was the owner of suit land, whereas defendant had been illegally occupying the same and had extended the same for setting up a Mosque and Madarasa
Defendant filed application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. seeking joining of additional parties/trustees on ground that the suit land was owned by a trust and said mosque and Madarasa were being run under the management of the trust
Trial court dismissed said application and decreed the suit on merits
Trust/trustees, for the first time, during execution of the decree, on basis of a Trust Deed, filed present appeal against the decree
Contention raised by the appellants/trustees was that the question as to existence of the trust with regard to suit land was yet to be adjudicated upon
Validity
Alleged trust was necessary party
Fourteen years had elapsed since filing of the suit
No limitation ran against the Trust
When the plea of trust had been raised, trial court ought to have issued notice to the trust and joined that as a party
High court, setting aside, the judgment and decree, remanded the case for decision afresh after framing and adjudication of specific issues regarding said trust
Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Plaintiff, through a previously filed Benami suit against his wife, had obtained consent decree in his favour with regard to suit properties; however, plaintiff had never filed execution petition for implementation of the same
Plaintiff, subsequently, on basis of said judgment and decree, filed present suit seeking declaration as to his ownership regarding suit properties and direction to defendant-Capital Development Authority for transfer of the same in his name
Applicant, being brother and legal heir of the deceased wife, filed application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, which was accepted both by Trial Court and revisional court
Plaintiff contended that the judgment and decree, passed in the previous suit, had attained finality extinguishing right of his deceased wife in the suit properties, and applicant, therefore, could not claim any right or interest in suit properties
Validity
Judgment and decree in question had not been executed during lifetime of the deceased nor had any proceedings been initiated in that regard
Applicant, being brother of the deceased, had acquired interest in suit properties as her legal heir
Existence and effect of said interest of applicant, in context of present suit, was to be determined by Trial Court
Presence of applicant was, therefore, essential to enable Trial Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions and matters, which were material for proper decision, simultaneously, avoiding multiplicity of litigation
Applicant was necessary and proper party
High Court observed that provision of O.I, R.10, C.P.C. were to be interpreted liberally in the interest of complete adjudication of all questions involved in the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Party is a necessary party if he ought to have been joined in suit, and in whose absence, no effective decree can be passed
Persons, whose presence before court is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in suit, are proper parties.
Petitioner, in post-remand proceedings, filed application under O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C. in ejectment proceedings on ground that as tenancy agreement was executed between respondents/landlord and tenant through the petitioner being attorney of the landlord, he had interest in ejectment proceedings and being intervener was to be impleaded as proper and necessary party in the proceedings for effectual and complete adjudication of ejectment petition
Landlord had revoked said power of attorney due to misuse of powers by petitioner
Trial court dismissed said application holding that Intervener/petitioner had no right or interest in the matter and the application was filed only to linger on the matter to harass landlord and to waste time of the court
Appellate court upheld the order of the Rent Controller
Ejectment application was accepted both by Rent Controller and appellate court
Contention raised by petitioner was that he had obtained possession of rented property from tenant and was still in possession
Validity
Petitioner had been unlawfully and illegally interfering in affairs of rented property, and caused prolonged delay in ejectment of tenant despite court ejectment orders
Petitioner, in the previously filed petitions, had specifically been declared not to be owner of rented property, but through the present petition he had frustrated the ejectment orders of courts below by obtaining injunctive order against concurrent findings of courts below on pretext of dismissal of his application under O. I, R. 10, C.P.C.
Petitioner had malafidely caused more than six years delay in execution of ejectment order by abuse of process of court
Such was mala fide and illegal interference of a stranger into rented property in ejectment proceedings
Petitioner had neither claimed possession of rented property nor had he the right to obtain the same from tenant
Landlord was entitled to the fruits of ejectment orders and whosoever was in possession of rented property was to be removed
High Court dismissing the present petition ordered that possession of rented property to be handed over to the landlord
Constitutional petition was dismissed with cost.
Objection to joinder, misjoinder or non joinder must be taken at the earliest, failing which as per O. I, R.13, C.P. C., such objection will be deemed to have been waived
Principles.
Parties to Suit Parties to suit-Impleading of plaintiff or defendant for one stage of suit is impleading for all stages.
"Parties to Suit", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/22243
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Parties to Suit"
1993 C L C 1307
Mst. AMINA BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Court: Karachi1981 C L C 1245
The JETPUR MEMON ASSOCIATION‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM AND 9 others‑Respondents
Court: KarachiP L D 1985 Karachi 705
Mst. MARIUM AND 5 OTHERS-Applicants Versus Haji ALI AND 3 others-Respondents
Court: Ss. 2tt2), 12(2) & 47-Word `decree'-Meaning-Formal expression of adjudication which, so far as regards Court expressing it, conclusively determines rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy-Word "parties" would mean parties to suit or their legal representatives but would not include strangers to suit--Person not joined as party to suit in which decree had been passed, such decree, held, would not be against that person and he could not say that same had been obtained against him by fraud or misrepresentation.-Words and phrases.1993 C L C 2489
SABZ ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ HUSSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2007 C L D 1600
HASSAMUDDIN — Appellant Versus AL-ZAMIN LEASING MODARBA and 5 others — Respondents
Court: Karachi1994 C L C 1607
MUHAMMAD AQEEL alias AQEEL AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1986 C L C 118
Mrs. RAZIA‑‑Plaintiff Versus WAJID ALI and 10 others‑‑Defendants
Court: Karachi1997 M L D 2440
Khawaja JAVED IQBAL and others‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus Mst. NADIRA BEGUM and others‑‑‑Defendants
Court: Karachi1999 C L C 2098
MUHAMMAD IDREES ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1981 C L C 791
ABDUL SATTAR‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN ETC.‑Respondents
Court: Lahore