' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---Through instant petition, the petitioner has called in question order, dated 21-9-1998 of the learned Trial Court, whereby application filed by defendants Nos.3 and 4, for deletion of their names from the array of defendants was accepted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the project ofconstruction of "Remaining works of the Swimming Pool of the Model Town Club and filtration of plant room of Model Town Club" in Model Town Society was awarded to respondent No.1; and agreement in this respect was signed and executed by parties. Cooperative Model Town Society is a distinct body and has its own independent status. The project is for the benefit of the members of the society who being beneficiaries of the project remained represented during construction of project and also in the proceedings in the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that the then Administrator of Cooperative Model Town Society, i,e, Commissioner Lahore Division was supervising the project and the agreement was executed through him, therefore, the Court can only arrive at just and effective decision, if the Cooperative Model Town Society remains party in the proceedings. He has then contended that the Court below has passed the order without appreciating that a party, whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it to settle all the questions involved in the suit is a proper party and suit where a property party is not impleaded is bad. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of 1995 SCMR 376 (no judgment found).
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand has submitted that respondent No.3 was not originally impleaded in the revision as a party. He was subsequently impleaded in the array of respondents. The revision petition to the extent of respondent No.3 is barred by limitation. While referring to the contract agreement, dated 20-12-1990, he has submitted that the contract of the above project was executed and signed between Sports Board Punjab through its Director (the employer) on one hand and Qavi Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. (contractor) on the other hand. There is no privy of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.3. While referring to clause (1) of the agreement, learned counsel has submitted that parties in contract have clearly stipulated that the employer (Sports Board Punjab) shall make and the contractor shall receive payment for everything furnished and done by the contractor as per the contract agreement. While referring to said clause he added that Cooperative Model Town Society does not figure in the execution of the contract or with regard to the payment for the work done regarding the project. Learned counsel has referred to the legal notice issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that the grievance of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is against the Sports Board only.
Internal arrangement between Punjab Sports Board and Model Town Club, is not part of contract.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has adopted the line of arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and stated that the Punjab Sports Board is to disburse money for the project and ModelTown Cooperative Society being beneficiary is not required under law to remain as a party to the lis.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
6. Suit of respondent No.1 is for recovery of damages and compensation. Such suit arises out of a contractual obligation. Contract, dated 20-12-1990 is paramount document, perusal whereof reveals that there is no privy of contract between respondent No.3 and the petitioner. Terms of the contract, performance thereof and liabilities arising thereunder, are restricted to the parties to contract. Compensation for breach of contract can be claimed from a party to a contract, which has breached the terms of agreement. A person who is not a party to a contract is neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for damages. Petitioner can summon the record of the Cooperative Model Town Society, if it is so needed for the decision of the case, even without impleading Cooperative Model Town Society.
7. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly.