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 Leave to Appeal No. 10‑R of 1984, decided on 21st March, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 1-11‑193 in Civil Revision No. 86 of 1982).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, r. 10 --N: W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S. 12‑Pre‑emption suite Imp leading of necessary party‑Person purchasing suit property from plaintiff during pendency of suit‑Such person filing application before trial Court for being impleaded as plaintiff to suit‑Order of trial Court allowing such person to be impleaded as plaintiff to suit, held, just and fair and in accordance with dictates of principles of impleading necessary party‑Judgment of High Court upholding trial Court's view, held further, unexceptionable‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Mushtaq Ali Tahar Kheli, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st March, 1984. .
Leave to appeal has been sought from a revisional order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 1‑11‑1983 ; whereby while setting aside an appellate order, the order passed by a learned Civil Judge substituting the respondents as plaintiffs in a suit was restored.
The brief facts strictly relevant to the present petition stated at the Bar are that Fakhr‑uz-Zaman and others plaintiffs filed a suit against Malik Amin and others. Subsequently the respondents filed an application that they having purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit from the, plaintiffs, should be impleaded as plaintiffs. This application was allowed, under Order XXII, rule 10, C. P. C: The present petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was allowed. The petitioner's plea was that they having filed a pre‑emption suit on the ground of being tenants had in the meanwhile succeeded in respect of the same sale which was relied upon by the respondents, no cause of action was left with the latter so as to be impleaded as plaintiffs. The respondents then filed a revision petition in the High Court. Their plea as explained by their learned counsel is that the original suit filed by Fakhr‑uz‑Zaman and others was on the basis that the petitioners as tenants could not have denied the title of the land owners, therefore, on such denial they forfeited the right to continue as tenants accordingly Fakhr‑uz‑Zaman and others were entitled to the declaration and possession sought in the original suit. After the suit is ultimately decreed it is further submitted from the respondents side, the so‑called tenants would lose the rights of tenancy which was the basis of their alleged right of pre‑emption, and that respondents would have a cause of action to protect their purchase made during the pendency of the suit.
After hearing the learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned trial Court is not only just and fair but is also in accord with the dictates of the principles regarding impleading necessary parties. The judgment of the High Court in this behalf is unexceptionable. We do not find any justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
M.Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer