2018 Y L R Note 268
[Balochistan (Turbat Bench)]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
ABDUL GHAFOOR KALMATI ---Petitioner
Versus
NAGUMAN and 15 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. (T) 41 of 2017, decided on 15th January, 2018.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. I, R. 10--- Suits for declaration filed by both the parties ---Consolidation of suits ---
Application for impleadment of party in one of the suits ---Scope ---Suits filed by both the
parties had already been consolidated ---Petitioner/intervener moved application for
impleading him as necessary party which was dismissed ---Validity ---No prejudice would
cause to the petitioner as he had already filed suit on the same subject m atter against
certain respondents ---Both the suits had been consolidated---Application for impleadment
of petitioner as party had no effect as the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to prove his
own suit pending before Trial Court ---No illegality or irr egularity had been pointed out in
the impugned order passed by the court below ---Revision was dismissed in limine. [Para.
5 of the judgment]
Abdul Latif and Abdul Hameed Baloch for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 2017.
ORDER
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This order disposes of instant Civil Revision filed
by the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor Kalmati son of Mir Rehmat Kalmati; against the order
and decree dated 19th October 2017 (hereinafter referred as, impugned order and decree")
passed by the learned Qazi Pasni, (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court" whereby the
application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
plaintiffs/respondent s Nos.1 to 13 filed suit bearing No.4 of 2016 before the learned Qazi
Pasni on 16th January 2016 against the defendants/ respondents Nos. 4 to 16 with the
averments that the suit land was owned by deceased Sher Jan and he has gifted half share
to the plain tiff No.1 of suit land bearing Khewit/Khasra Nos.358, 359, Khewait/Khatooni
No.3/3 Khasra Nos.360 to 363, Khasra No.4/4 Khasra Nos.382, 388. Sher Jan was expired
and half share of the suit land was divided to his legal heirs plaintiff Nos.1 to 13; that the
parties of Suit No. 4 thereafter comes to a compromise and on the basis of compromise,
the property was divided between the parties by the learned trial Court vide order dated
20th April, 2016. however, in during the course, the petitioner also filed Suit No.15 of
2016 against the defendants (respondents Nos.14 to 15) and defendants Nos.3 to 9
(respondents Nos.1 to 7) before the trial Court; that the decree dated 20th April, 2016 was challenged by the petitioners before the Majlis -e-Shoora, Gwadar, which w as accepted on
28th January 2017 and the case was remanded to the trial Court with the direction to consolidate both the Civil Suits Nos.4/2016 and 15/2016 and meanwhile, the petitioner/ interveners filed an application for impleading the petitioner the Su it No.4 of 2016 as
necessary party. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner was contested
by the respondent by means of filing rejoinder and thereafter the trial Court dismissed the
application of the petitioner/interveners vide impugned order dated 19th October, 2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of
learned trial Court suffers from misreading and misappreciation of law; that the learned
Majlis -e-Shoora set aside the decree dated 20th Oct ober, 2016 and remanded the case to
be consolidated with the suit of the petitioner and it was admitted fact that the petitioner is
being necessary party to be impleaded in the Suit No.4/2016 as respondents, but the learned trial Court without considering this important aspects of the case dismissed the application of the petitioner; that the petitioner has been deprived from his legal rights, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the pet itioner and perused the record and dilated
upon the impugned order dated 19th October 2017, which reveals that the respondents have filed a civil suit against each other with regard to the correction of mutation entries and thereafter both the parties comes to conclusion and compromise on the basis whereof the learned trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of compromise vide its order dated
20th April 2016. While in the meantime, the petitioner has already filed Suit No.15/2017
against the defendants Nos .1, 2 (respondents Nos. 14, 15) and defendants Nos.3 to 9
(respondent Nos.l to 7) before the trial Court, however, being aggrieved from order dated 20th April 2016 in the suit of respondents bearing No.4/2016 challenged the said order before the Majlis -e-Shoora and thereafter the learned Majlis -e-Shoora set aside the decree
dated 20th April, 2016 and directed the learned trial Court to consolidate both the suits and thereafter both the suits were consolidated, however, the petitioner filed an application un der Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. in the Suit No.4/2016 of the respondents to be
impleaded as necessary party, which was contested by the respondents and after hearing
the parties the application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order
as stated above in Para No. 1.
5. Perusal of impugned order reflects that the learned trial Court after proper
appreciation of material available on record has rightly held that:--
5. Bare perusal of the above order, prima facie reflects that the same is well reasoned
and no prejudice would cause to the petitioner as they have already filed Suit No.15/2016
on the same subject -matter against the certain respondents, as such, both the suits were
consolidated by the order of learned Majlis -e-Shoora, Gwadar, as su ch, the application
under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. of the petitioner/intervener is of no legal effect and was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner having sufficient opportunity to prove its own suit pending before the learned trial Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality and
irregularity in the impugned order to warrant interference by this Court.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed in liminee.
ZC/31/Bal. Revision dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.