Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.I, R.10---Necessary and proper party to proceedings, determination of---Test stated. Necessary party is one, who ought to have been joined and in whose absence no effective adjudication can take place or decree passed, while proper party is the party whose presence is necessary before the Court in order to completely and effectually adjudicate upon and settled all questions involved in the suit. Only those persons are necessary or proper parties to the proceedings, whose interests are challenged in the suit and without their presence the suit could not be decided on merits. If a dispute in a suit can effectually be adjudicated in absence of person, such person is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. The provision of O.I, R. 10, C.P.C. does not mean that any person, who has any distant or indirect relationship or connection with either the plaintiff or defendant ought to be joined as a party to the proceedings. A remote connection with the issue or party would not make a person as necessary party without whose presence the issue cannot be adjudicated and settled. Mere fact that person may, by some chance, become interested in claiming property adversely to plaintiff is no ground for his being so impleaded, because that would necessitate importation of facts not formed in the suit. Rashid Ahmed v. Mst. Jiwan and others 1997 SCMR 171; Munaliza Fruit Juice Industries Ltd. v. Government of Sindh 1998 MLD 9; Khayaban-e-Iqbal Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mustafa Haji Muhammad 1996 CLC 1758 and 1 Sh. Manzoor Ahmed v. Mst. Iqbal Begum 989 SCMR 1949 ref. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.I, R.10---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.52---Suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 26-4-2004---Necessary party---Application by intervener on basis of subsequent sale, agreement dated 16-2-2005 executed in his favour by vendor during pendency of plaintiff's suit---Validity---Subsequent agreement was hit by S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even though no stay order of Court was in force at the time of its execution---Sale agreement would not confer any…