Writ Petition under Article 199 against Order I Rule 10 Application
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a property dispute in Bahawalpur. Muhammad Yaqoob had filed a lawsuit claiming ownership and possession of 439 kanals of land, which he said he bought at an open auction. During the court proceedings, another person, Maqbool Ahmad, applied to be added as a party to the case under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Maqbool Ahmad claimed he had been cultivating 100 kanals of that land as a tenant since 1978 and was seeking ownership rights over it.
The trial court allowed Maqbool Ahmad to be added as a party. Yaqoob challenged this decision through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, but that was dismissed too. He then approached the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition, arguing that both orders were illegal and that Maqbool Ahmad had no real right to be included in the case.
The High Court disagreed. It held that given Maqbool Ahmad's long-standing possession of the land and his competing claim of ownership, he was at least a "proper party" whose inclusion would help fully resolve the dispute and avoid multiple lawsuits. The court also found no legal flaw, unfairness, or irrationality in the lower courts' orders. Since these were factual findings properly made by the lower courts, the High Court said it could not interfere in a constitutional petition. The petition was dismissed outright, meaning the lower courts' decisions stood.
یہ مقدمہ بہاولپور میں جائیداد کے ایک تنازعے سے متعلق تھا۔ محمد یعقوب نے 439 کنال اراضی کی ملکیت اور قبضے کا دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا، جس کے بارے میں ان کا کہنا تھا کہ انہوں نے یہ زمین کھلی نیلامی میں خریدی تھی۔ عدالتی کارروائی کے دوران ایک اور شخص، مقبول احمد نے سول پروسیجر کوڈ کے آرڈر 1 رول 10 کے تحت درخواست دی کہ اسے بھی مقدمے میں فریق بنایا جائے۔ مقبول احمد کا دعویٰ تھا کہ وہ 1978 سے اس زمین میں سے 100 کنال پر بطور کاشتکار قابض ہے اور اس حصے پر ملکیت کے حقوق کا خواہاں ہے۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے مقبول احمد کو فریق بنانے کی درخواست منظور کر لی۔ یعقوب نے اس فیصلے کو نظرثانی کی درخواست کے ذریعے ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے سامنے چیلنج کیا، مگر وہ درخواست بھی خارج ہو گئی۔ اس کے بعد انہوں نے آئینی درخواست کے ذریعے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا اور موقف اختیار کیا کہ دونوں فی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 1998 Lahore 1011 [ Bahawalpur Bench] Present: GHULAM SARWAR SHEIKH, J. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB--Petitioner versus ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAHAWALPUR etc.- Respondents W.P. No. 5506/97, dismissed on 13-11-1997. Constitution of Pakistan , 1973-- -v-Art. 199--Writ Petition~O. 1 R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Party to suit-Impleading of-Application for-Acceptance of~Challenge to-- Impugned orders neither appear to suffer from any infirmity or perversity nor can be taken to be fanciful perfunctory or laconic any way- Neither any aspect has been pointed out nor high-lighted to show, or indicate that orders sought to be impeached and set at naught, suffer from any lacuna, which may have effect of rendering it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and significance-Not a single error liable to be corrected through judicial review has been hinted at~Rather finding of fact embracing and encompassing all aspects is neither exceptionable nor challengeable before High Court in constitutional petition—Petition dismissed in limine. [Pp. 1012 & 1013] A Malik Muhammad Aslam, Advocate for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 13-11-1997. ORDER Heard.
2. Claiming to be owner in possession of 439 Kanals of land in Chak No. 42/DB, on the plea of having purchased it in open auction a suit for the __ grant of a declaratory decree with perpetual and mandatoiy injunctions as consequential relief, stands instituted by Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner.
3. Such assertion has duly been controverted and traversed by his adversary.
4. During the course of proceedings thereof, respondent No. 5 namely Maqbool Ahmad moved an application under Order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as party on the pleas that he had been selected as tenant in respect of piece of 100 kanals of land, forming the subject matter of "dispute", he is cultivating possession thereof since 1978; seeking ownership rights with regard thereto and disclosing that the petitioner has resorted to this action after having made a vain attempt through a suit filed by his son namely Muhammad Khalid.
5. It was allowed vide an order dated 21.6.1997 which, was assailed before learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur through a revision petition on the ground that learned Trial Court had not properly appreciated the facts of the case and illegally exercised its jurisdiction. Same, however. met the fate of dismissal on 6.10.1997.
6. Such orders have been called in question in instant Constitutional Petition on the grounds enumerated in paragraph No. 10 thereof.
7. Reiterating the same, learned counsel representing the petitioner has endeavoured to argue that impugned orders dated 21.6.1997 and 6.10.1997 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and learned Addit onal District Judge, Bahawalpur respectively are absolutely void, illegal and liable to be set aside; that the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to pass the order with undue haste without summoning/requisitioning the record and that claim of respondent No. 5 is absolutely shaky. Reliance has been placed on Tariq Mahmood vs. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi, Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi and 6 others (1992 C.L.C. 1432) (Lahore), Pakistan Banking-Council and another vs. Ali Muhammad Naqvi and others (1985 S.C.M.R. 714), Ahmad Din vs. Muhammad Bashir and 6 others (N.L.R. 1992 Civil 250) and Altaf Parekh vs. Delments Construction Company (1992 C.L.C. 700) to canvass that respondent No. 5 was wrongly impleaded as he is neither necessary nor proper party.
8. When judged on the touch-stone and in perspective of true scope of powers vested in Court in this regard, as laid down in galaxy of rulings, few of which, stand quoted and referred to above, respondent No. 5 turns out and emerges to be at least "proper party" in wake of his possession over a considerable piece of suit land for the last about two decades, his claim of seeking title and proprietory rights with regard thereto and in lambasting the claim of petitioner, so as to lead to complete and effectual adjudication of the matters in controversy.
9. No doubt, it is equally well.settled, that a plaintiff is "dominus litis" and ordinarily no person should be added as party against his wishes, yet, nothing is suggestive of any departure there-from or likelihood of causing any prejudice to him. Seemingly position in instant case is converse and rather otherwise not only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but also, involvement of parties into vortex of litigation.
10. Be that as it may, Writ petition is liable to be disposed of from entirely a different angle as well. Impugned orders neither appear to suffer from any infirmity or perversity nor can be taken to be fanciful, perfunctory or laconic any way.
11. Neither^iny aspect has been pointed out nor high-lighted to show, or indicate that the orders sought to be impeached and set at naught, suffer from any lacuna, which, may have the effect of rendering it to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and significance. In short, not a single error, liable to be corrected through judicial review has been hinted at. Rather finding of fact embracing and encompassing all aspects is neither exceptionable nor challengable before this Court in Constitutional Petition as expounded in plethora of authorities on the point.
12. Viewed from any angle, Writ Petition merits out-right dismissal and is hereby dismissed in liminc. «K.A.B.) Petition dismissed in limine.