| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 395 1956 SLD 395 = 1956 PLD 391 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Suit No. 355 of 1951, decided in January 1952.
Before Vellani, J
Jamiatrai Lalchand for Plaintiff. Mahmood Husain for Defendant. A. K. Lakhani for Applicants.
Suit No. 355 of 1951, decided in January 1952.
Before Vellani, J
Jamiatrai Lalchand for Plaintiff. Mahmood Husain for Defendant. A. K. Lakhani for Applicants.
Haji ABDUL WAHAB-Plaintiff
VERSUS
KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ----Defendant
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 10 (2)
P L D 1956 Karachi 391 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. 1, rule 10 (2)-. 'Proper-' as distinguished from 'necessary' party to suit' Ques tions involved in skit'-Whether questions between parties to suit only. A person is a 'proper' party if his presence before the Court is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In other words 'proper' party means the party who may be interested in the result of the suit. The Court can bring a party on the record of a suit, if it finds that the party will be prejudiced by his not being joined as a party to the suit. The word "or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and com pletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit" occurring in Order I, rule 10 (2) Civil P. C., are not confined to decisions on questions which arise between the parties to the suit, but include the final adjudication on ques tion as between not only parties to the suit but also third parties interested in the dispute. In the present case, the plaintiff filed a suit against Karachi Municipal Corporation praying for a declaration by the Court that certain building belonging to him was beyond repair, and that the order of the Municipal Commissioner compelling him to carry out repairs to the building was unwarranted and illegal. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the Karachi Municipal Corporation from authorizing the tenants to carry out repairs to the building at his own cost. The tenants formed themselves into an association and under Order I, rule 10 (2) Civil P. C. applied to the Court to have two of its members joined as defendants representing them selves and the association under Order I, rule 8, Civil P. C. This application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the words "or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and com pletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit", must be…