parties— Proceedings on a petition for writ of quo warranto against the
appointment, as Chief Minister of a Province, of a person who was under a
disqualification imposed under S. 3 of the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification)
Act, 1949 but the period of whose disqualification was curtailed by an amending
order of the Governor— General—Whether the Province or the Federation are
necessary or proper parties to proceedings.
In a petition for a writ of quo warranto, it
was contended by the petitioner that the Governor— General had no power to
amend this previous order of disqualification passed against the respondent
under section 3 of the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification)
Act, 1949 so as to curtail the period of disqualification of the respondent,
and thus to enable the Provincial Governor to appoint the respondent as the
Chief Minister of the Province. The respondent put forward a preliminary
objection that the Federation and the Province were necessary parties to the
writ proceedings. Held, that while they were proper parties, and while, if they
had applied for it, they would have been heard they were not necessary parties;
that in the circumstances of the case, IL was not desirable, at the expense of
an adjournment, to make either of them parties to the proceedings:
C.J., Vellani and Muhammad Bakhsh, JJ.) Illahi Bakhsh vs. Muhammad Ayoob
Khuhro: PLD 1956 Sind 101]
parties—Order of ejectment issued by Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner under
instructions of Central and Provincial Government— Contested by writ
petition—Central or Provincial Government nor necessary party.
The mere fact that the Deputy Rehabilitation
Commissioner passed order for ejectment of the petitioner at the instance of
the Provincial or the Central Government does not render it incumbent upon the
petitioner to implead the said Government as parties to the petition
and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ) Khadim Mohy-ud-Din vs. D.R.C. Lyallpur: PLD 1956
—Suit directed against authority under
control of Federation of Pakistan—Federation of Pakistan only necessary party.
PLD 1954 Sind 273 ref.:
Noorul Hassain vs. Federation of Pakistan: PLD 1955 Sind 2001]
—Necessary party means party in whose absence
no effective decree can be granted in suit at all—Sec Civil Procedure Code,
0.1. R. 10: PLD 2954 Lah 406.
—Person may be joined as proper party, when
Court considers necessary—No common question of law or fact involved—Party need
not be added—See Civil Procedure Code, O.I.R. 10: PLD 1951 Sind 32.
—Plaintiffs who were tenants under Municipal
Committee sued their servants for possession of shop, who alleged that they
were not servants of plaintiff, but tenants under Municipal Committee—
Municipal Committee not necessary party—See Civil Procedure Code, O.I.R. 10: PLD 1954 Lah. 406.
—“Proper” as distinguished from “necessary”
party to suit—’Question involved in suit’—Whether questions between parties to
Suit only—See Civil Procedure Code, 0.I.R. 10(2): PLD 1956 Kar. 391.
—Proper party means party whose presence is
necessary for final adjudication of all matters in dispute—See Civil Procedure
Code, 0.I.R. 10: PLD 1954 Lah. 406.
—Suil for specific performance— Subsequent
transferee for value— Interested pety—Scc Civil Procedure Code, OJ, R. 10 : PLD
1954 Dacca 158.
Suit—Adding parties to suit
—Suit for specific performance—Parties alien
to contract may be joined as defendants for the purpose of a complete and effective,
adjudication of title— Relief as to possession cannot be claimed against such
alien parties—See Civil Procedure Code, 0.1. R. 3etc.: PLD 1955 Lah. 644.
suit—Substitution of Parties to Suit
—Substitution of defendant—To be effected
under O.I.R. 10 CPC and not under 0.VI, R. 17 C.P.C See Civil – See Civil
Procedure Code, 0.I.R. 10 etc. PLD 1953 Lah. 266.
Suit—Transposition of Parties
—No appeal in eye of law before Court—No
transposition possible— Sec Civil Procedure Code, 0.I, R. 1O: PLD 1950 B J 57.