2006 S C M R 1067


2006 S C M R 1067

[Supreme  Court  of  Pakistan]

Present:  Tanvir  Ahmed  Khan  and  Khalil-ur-Rehman  Ramday,  JJ

ZAHOOR  HUSSAIN---Petitioner

Versus

Ch. NIAZ ALI and another---Respondents

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.640/L of 2000, decided on 6th March, 2003.

(On appeal from the order, dated 13-1-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed upon C.M. No.190/1998 in Writ Petition No.5857 of 1995).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Arts. 185(3) & 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.I, R.10---Constitutional petition before High Court---Impleading as necessary party---Suit property was mutated in the name of petitioner but High Court refused to implead him as party to the proceedings---Validity---As the disputed property was mutated in the name of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be impleaded so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation which would follow in case of decision of main Constitutional petition pending adjudication before High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and order passed by High Court was set aside---Appeal was allowed.Riyasat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.Ozair Ahmed Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.

Date of hearing: 6th March, 2003.

ORDER

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 13-1-2000 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby C.M. No.190 of 1998 filed in Writ Petition No.5857 of 1995 filed by the petitioner for his impleadment in the above writ petition was dismissed.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent claiming himself to be the holder of General Power of Attorney secured an ex parte decree. On the basis of the above power of attorney, he filed a declaratory suit on 9-6-1977 which was ex parte decreed against Khaleeq-uz-Zaman, respondent No.2. On the strength of the said decree, he alienated the disputed land to his sons on 27-9-1977.Respondent No.2, Khaleeq-uz-Zaman filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree which was allowed by the learned trial Court through its order; dated 16-2-1991. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the above order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, through his order, dated 4-7-1995. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.5857 of 1995 before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, Multan, which is still pending.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that through mutual exchange the petitioner has secured the disputed property and mutation to that effect has also been attested on 7-8-1995, copy whereof is appended with this petition at page 51 of the paper book. On the strength of the same, the petitioner on coming to know about the pendency of the above writ petition moved an application for his impleadment which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate-on-Record for respondent No.l. Admittedly, the disputed property at this juncture stands mutated in the name of the petitioner. In these circumstances it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be impleaded so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation which would follow in case of decision of the main writ petition which is pending adjudication before the Lahore High Court. The dispute in this case though of General Power of Attorney but certainly it is in respect of the property stated to be owned by respondent No.2, Khaleeq­uz-Zaman.Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned order, dated 13-1-2000 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M.H./Z-9/SC   Appeal allowed.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more