Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1969, decided on 7th May 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 5th February 1968, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 3 of 1968, in L. P. A. No. 411 of 1966/W. P. No. 97‑R of 1968).

Art. 98 read with Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908), O. I, r. 10(2)‑Parties to suit‑Writ petition confined to determination of rival claims of two persons‑Orders passed in such proceedings‑Cannot affect person not party to proceedings‑Application of third person for being impleaded as party in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of writ petition‑Held, wholly misconceived and rightly rejected by High Court‑Such third person was neither necessary nor proper party in Letters Patent Appeal.

Mahmood Ali Kasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.

Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 : Ex parte.

Date of hearing : 7th May 1970.

‑The appellant, who is a local, is in occupation of bungalow No. 143, Railway Road, Lyallpur, as an allottee. This was originally transferred to respondent No. 4 Shaikh Muhammad Amin along with a piece of land in the neighborhood of the bungalow wherein he had set up a dairy farm. On an information by Mst. Jannat Noor, respondent No. 3 that he had secured the transfer of the bungalow unauthorized without any right, the Settlement Commissioner revoked the transfer in his favour, and ordered that it should be made over to Mst. Jannat Noor as an informer. Muhammad Amin aforesaid filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 411 of 1966) which is still pending in the High Court. The appellant applied to the Letters Patent Bench for being impleaded as a party in the appeal which was refused, leading to a petition to this Court for special leave to appeal which was allowed to consider whether in the circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in refusing to implead the appellant as a party.

It is contended by Mr. Mahmud Ali Kasuri, the learned counsel for the appellant, that under Settlement Scheme No. 8, as amended on 12‑9‑66, the appellant in spite of being a local is now eligible for the transfer of the bungalow in dispute which has continuously remained in his possession, and that the bungalow is still available for transfer as it was wrongly made over to Mst. Jannat Noor as an informer, at a time when no powers vested in the Settlement authorities to make over properties to the informers after the deletion of section 10 (1) (b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by Ordinance No. II of 1962.

It appears that the appellant had filed a claim form before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on the strength of his claim under Scheme No. 8, which was rejected, but an appeal by him to the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner is still pending. He had also filed a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No. 79 of 1968) whereby he had challenged the transfer of the bungalow in favour of Mst. Jannat Noor by the Settlement authorities, which was dismissed. He has filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (No. 161 of 1968) against the order of the High Court, which is pending in this Court.

The appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Muhammad Amin which arose out of the writ petition to which the appellant was not a party and in which the dispute was confined to the rival claims of Muhammad Amin and Mst. Jannat Noor for the transfer of the disputed bungalow. It is obvious that no orders passed in those proceedings ,to which he was not a party can affect him. His effort, therefore, to be impleaded as a party in the Letters Patent Appeal (No. 411 of 1966) was wholly misconceived and was rightly rejected by the High Court.

If the appellant feels that he has a right to the transfer of, the bungalow in question, on the basis of Scheme No. 8 he may pursue his appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which is still pending and likewise he may pursue his petition for special Leave to Appeal No. 101 of 1968 which has been kept pending in this Court.

This appeal is dismissed with one set of costs payable to respondent No. 3. The application of Muhammad Amin respondent No. 4, (who was placed ex parte) in this appeal for setting aside the ex parte order made against him is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.