Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2388 2010 SLD 2388 2010 CLC 1708
Sindh High Court

MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
Muhammad Aziz Khan for Plaintiffs. Ahmed Ali Shah for interveners. Asadullah Memon for Defendant

MUHAMMAD ALAM and 4 others--Plaintiffs

VS

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary and 2 others ----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39, 42, 54, & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10---Suit for declaration, cancellation of orders, mandatory and permanent injunctions---Cancellation of allotment of plaintiff's shop in Market through a general order without hearing him---Relief sought in suit to declare such order as illegal and cancel same, direct authority to grant lease of suit shop and restrain authority from dispossessing plaintiff therefrom---Application by intervener/allottee to be joined as defendant in suit---Plea of intervener that he being occupant of a shop in such market was threatened by some persons to be dispossessed therefrom after issuance of stay order in favour of plaintiff---Validity---Impugned order had not been issued to any individual by name, but same was a general order of cancellation of allotments of shops having been issued illegally by unauthorized officials during period of ban and in violation of decision of Provincial Ombudsman---Allotment letters of intervener had also been issued during period of ban---Allotment letters of plaintiff and intervener came within ambit and purview of impugned cancellation order---Unless impugned order was set aside by orders of court in case of each individual, same would apply to all occupants, who secured allotments during period of ban---No benefit would accrue to intervener by joining him in suit as defendant, as nothing could be granted or allowed to him in capacity of mere defendant---Intervener instead of pursuing such application should have filed separate legal proceedings to challenge cancellation order, which was not against any particular shop, but had general impact on all allottees having secured shops during period of ban--Intervener was opposing suit by supporting impugned order---Nothing would be achieved by intervener after adding him as defendant in suit---Nazir's report negated intervener's stance to be in possession of shop---Presence of intervener was not necessary for deciding plaintiff's suit, wherein he had simply sought declaration and cancellation of impugned order, whereby his allotment was cancelled--Intervener might initiate separate…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492