| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1605 2010 SLD 1605 2010 YLR 763 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1466 of 2000, decision Dated: 24-09-2009.
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mushtaq A. Memon
Respondent(s) by: Khawaja Naveed Ahmed Imdad Bhatti for the Intervenor.
Suit No. 1466 of 2000, decision Dated: 24-09-2009.
MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mushtaq A. Memon
Respondent(s) by: Khawaja Naveed Ahmed Imdad Bhatti for the Intervenor.
ZOHRA BEGUM
VS
SAJIDA BEGUM
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.I,R.10,10(2),S.151
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. I, R.10(2)---'Necessary' and `proper party'---Distinction. A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence before the Court is deemed necessary in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R. 10(2)---Suit for declaration---Plaintiff claiming to be real owner of suit property, while alleging its deceased owners to be his benamidar---Application by intervenor for his impleadment as party in the suit alleging execution of agreement of sale in his favour by defendants (legal heirs of deceased owner) in respect of suit property---Plea of intervenor that parties in his absence might obtain collusive decree to defeat his claim under such agreement---Validity---Question involved in the present suit requiring determination was as to whether deceased owner was holding suit property as a benamidar of plaintiff or not---Intervenor had entered into such agreement with defendants after four years of institution of present suit with full knowledge of plaintiff's claim--Intervenor had neither filed suit for specific performance of such agreement till yet nor could he be given any relief in present suit---Such plea of intervenor might have carried weight in case present suit would have been filed after execution of such agreement---Intervenor could not be impleaded just to supervise proceedings in present suit to watch his interest as pleaded---Presence of intervenor would not facilitate Court to decide such question involved therein as he was not a necessary or proper party---Application of intervenor was dismissed being misconceived. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.--- Through this application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., applicant Tariq Mehmood Seeks impleadment as defendant. Briefly, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against her daughter-in-law (Defendant No.1) and paternal grand children (Defendants Nos.2 to 5) seeking a declaration that she being the…
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