Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 37 of 1970, decided on 10th April 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court. of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th December 1969 in Civil Revision No. 648 of 1969).
O. I, r. 10‑Addition of pro forma defendants as co plaintiff's‑Always to be adopted when necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur v. Rajeswar Prasad Bhagat etc. A I R 1931 P C 162 rel.
Saeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Razzaque Raja, Advocate‑oil‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th April 1970.
‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Lahore) made in revisional jurisdiction, whereby in reversal of the order of the trial Court, respondents 2 to 8 were permitted to be transposed as co‑plaintiffs with respondent No. 1 (Raja Sohrab Khan) from their original status in the suit as pro forma defendants.
The issue arose in a suit brought by respondent No. 1 to contest the sale made by his father Raja Allah Dad Khan to one, Dewan Ali, as being without lawful necessity and thus invalid and ineffective against his reversionary rights under the customary law. The petitioner (Said Alam) had successfully pre‑empted that sale and stepped into the shoes of the vendee.
In his suit the plaintiff‑respondent had averred that respondents 2 to 5, his brothers, and respondents 6 to 8, his minor nephews, had relinquished their right in his favour who were therefore impleaded as pro forma defendants. These respondents, however, asserted their right and asked for transposition as co‑plaintiffs to which the plaintiff agreed. The trial Court, however, refused the prayer on the contention made by the petitioner that their impleadment as co‑plaintiffs would give them an undue advantage to the detriment of the valuable rights acquired by him by efflux of time because if these respondents had themselves brought in an independent suit at that time for the same action, it would be barred by limitation.
As observed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in his impugned order, the plaintiff‑respondent suit was in essence of a representative character which enured to the benefit of all the reversioners. The plaintiff had at first alleged that the respondents 2 to 8 had relinquished their claim but on the latter's plea that they had not done so, he did not object to their transposition as co‑plaintiffs.
The correct legal course to adopt in such a situation was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur v. Rajeswar Prasad Bhagat etc. (AIR1931PC162), wherein it was observed that "course of adding pro forma defendants as co‑plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings". This dictum with which we respectfully agree, is fully attracted to the facts of this case.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer