Abdul Haleem v. Syed Ahmed Ali Gilani,
Bench: Syeda Tahira Safdar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a property dispute in Quetta. The petitioner, Abdul Haleem, had filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a piece of property, alleging he had been wrongfully dispossessed and that the structure on the land was demolished by the defendants under the cover of a decree they had obtained through misrepresentation.
During the litigation, it emerged that the original defendants had sold the disputed property to six other people while the ownership dispute was still pending in court. The petitioner then asked the trial court to add these six buyers as defendants in the case, arguing that no meaningful court decision could be made without including the people who now held the property. The trial court refused, saying the request was late and that adding these new parties would change the nature of the suit.
The Balochistan High Court disagreed. It held that since the ownership question was still unresolved between the original parties, and the property had admittedly been transferred to new owners during the case, those new owners had effectively "stepped into the shoes" of the original defendants. This made them necessary parties, because any final court order would directly affect their rights. The court also noted that including them helped avoid multiple, separate lawsuits over the same property.
The High Court therefore set aside the trial court's order and allowed the six buyers to be added as defendants, directing the petitioner to file an amended plaint. This decision highlights how courts ensure that all parties whose rights are affected by a dispute get a chance to participate, so that judgments are fair and enforceable.
یہ مقدمہ کوئٹہ میں جائیداد کے ایک تنازعے سے متعلق تھا۔ درخواست گزار عبدالحلیم نے ایک دیوانی مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا جس میں اس نے ایک جائیداد کی ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا تھا اور الزام لگایا تھا کہ اسے ناجائز طور پر قبضے سے محروم کیا گیا اور مدعا علیہان نے دھوکہ دہی سے حاصل کردہ ایک ڈگری کی آڑ میں زمین پر موجود تعمیر کو مسمار کر دیا۔
مقدمے کی کارروائی کے دوران یہ بات سامنے آئی کہ اصل مدعا علیہان نے متنازعہ جائیداد چھ دیگر افراد کو فروخت کر دی تھی، جبکہ ملکیت کا تنازعہ عدالت میں زیرِ سماعت تھا۔ اس پر درخواست گزار نے ٹرائل کورٹ سے استدعا کی کہ ان چھ خریداروں کو بھی مقدمے میں بطور مدعا علیہ شامل کیا جائے، اور دلیل دی کہ جب تک جائیداد پر اب قابض افراد کو مقدمے میں شامل نہ کیا جائے، عدالت کوئی حقیقی معنوں میں کارآمد فیصلہ نہیں دے سکتی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ درخواست مسترد کر دی، یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2010 M L D 1363
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
ABDUL HALEEM ---Petitioner
Versus
Syed AHMED ALI GILANI and 7 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.311 of 2008, decided on 7th June, 2010.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----S. 42 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10 & O.XXXIX, R.2 ---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction ---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's application to implead six persons to whom suit pr operty was sold by defendants on the ground that nature of the suit would be changed by impleading the said persons ---Plaintiff contended that proposed defendants being owners of disputed property were necessary party, therefore, no effective decree could be passed without impleading them ---Validity ---Title of suit property was still a matter in issue between plaintiff and defendants/previous owners --- Disputed property had, admittedly, been transferred in favour of six persons requested to be impleaded ---Buyers of suit property having stepped into the shoes of previous owners had become necessary party resultantly, no effective decree could be passed without impleading them ---Trial Court had failed to appreciate provisions of relevant law---Petition was acc e pted by allowing plaintiff's application to implead said six persons by filing amended plaint.
Khushnood Ahmed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 30 - 9-2008 of Senior Civil Judge -II, Quetta, whereby the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading six persons, to whom the property in question has been sold by respondents Nos.16 and 17 is rejected. He preferred present petition with contention that trial Court wrongly observed that application has been filed with delay. Further, failed to observe that propose defendants being owners if not impleaded no effective decree can be passed. It h as also been wrongly observed by the trial Court that by impleading these persons the nature of the suit will be changed. He prayed for setting aside of impugned order and proposed defendants be impleaded.
Learned counsel for the parties are heard. The l earned counsel for petitioner contended that there was no delay on his part in filing of the application, as the sale is admitted by the respondents, therefore, in the circumstances no effective decree can be passed without impleading the persons to whom t he property is sold/transferred. While in rebuttal the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as property has been transferred therefore, in presence of new owners new cause of action has accrued, therefore, a new suit is required to be filed b y the petitioner. Further, contended that in case new owners/purchasers are made party to the suit the present respondents be deleted from the suit.
The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, possession and damages against the respondents thereby claimed himself to be lawful owner of the property in dispute with contention that he has been dispossessed while superstructure was demolished by the defendants in garb of execution of decree obtaine d by them with misrepresentation. The suit was strongly contested by the defendants thereby denying title of the petitioner in respect of property in question. It is further apparent from papers attached with instant petition that respondents Nos. 16 and 1 7 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for deletion of their names. In said application it is their contention that they have got no concern with the property in question rather they were simple attorney of respondents Nos. 1 to 15, afterward s on basis of this power of attorney property in question was sold in favour of six persons named therein. Nothing has been placed on file from which it can be apparent that what decision was taken by the trial Court while disposing of this application. Th ereafter, the petitioner filed application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. thereby prayed for impleading said six persons as defendants to the suit. The respondents strongly contested the application. The learned trial Court rejected the application on groun d that delay has been made in filing of this application, while impleading them as party would change nature of suit.
It is apparent from pleadings of the parties that in previous round of litigation the petitioner though tried to establish his title, bu t he was also put out of possession during course of execution of decree made in favour of respondents. As the matter has not yet been finally decided between the petitioner and respondents/previous owners. The title of property in question is matter in is sue between them. As now admittedly the property has been transferred in favour of persons namely Jameela Yousaf, Shaheen Wali, Abdul Siddique, Allah Noor, Khudai Noor and Abdul Qadeer, while the petitioner is still fighting to establish his title. Thus in the circumstances the persons step into shoes of previous owners are necessary party, as in absence of them no effective decree can be passed. Further, it is also necessary for securing the rights of new owners. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigatio n the mentioned persons were required to be impleaded as party. The trial Court failed to observe the relevant provision while giving findings on no basis, which is liable to be set aside.
In view of above discussion the instant petition is accepted. The order dated 30 -9-2008 is hereby set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner before trial Court is allowed. He is directed to file amended plaint thereby impleading the mentioned six persons as defendants to the suit.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
A.R.K./70/Q Petition accepted.