1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on applications under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. Bearing C.M.A.
2. No. 3550/2008, C.M.A. No. 3113/2008, C.M.A. No. 2938/2007 and C.M.A. No. 2937/2007.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the case-law, which pertains to the decision, either way, of the petition itself on merits, whereas the question with regard to the pleas raised in the above-stated four C.M.As. Is as to whether or nor the applicants of the said applications are entitled to be impleaded as respondents in this petition.
4. The case-law relevant to the point involved in this case would be as reported in Messrs Mona Lisa Fruit Juice Industries Ltd. Through Managing Director v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Housing Town Planning and Local Bodies and 5 others (1998 M LD 9), wherein the following observations were recorded:--- "How, I proceed to examine the case-law cited by Mr. Suleman Kassim. In Mst. Saeeda Akhtar (PLD 1981 Lahore 623), it was held by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court that a sale effected in violation of Court's prohibitory orders merely entail penal consequences for the purchaser of such property but the orders do not detract from validity of the sale. In this case a teamed Division Bench of Lahore High Court made' reference to the case -of Bell Ram and Brothers v. Ram Lal and others (AIR 1.925 Lahore 644). In the case of Suleman Zulfiqar (1986 M LD 195) it was held by a learned Division Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. K.A. Ghani and Mr. Naeemuddin, J.J., (as their Lordships then were) that where a party is. In possession of the property in lieu of an agreement to sell and is having a vital interest in the property such party is entitled to be impleaded in the suit for fair and just adjudication; for thepurpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings; to advance cause of justice; to shorten litigation and to eliminate chances of fraud and collusion. The rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Khursheed v. Malika and others (1983 S.C.M.R. 534) was followed by the said Division Bench. In Mst. Jannat and others (1987 M LD 2266), a learned single Judge of this Court defined the expression "property party" as a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle the questions involved in the suit. It was further held that the term "question involved" includes all matters material to a proper decision of the case with the purpose to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Single Judge followed the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1975 SC 643). In Muhammad Humayun (1991 M LD 1957) the Lahore High Court dismissed a writ petition and upheld the other of Additional District 'Judge impleading respondent No. 1 as one of the defendants in the suit. In this case, it was held by a Division Bench of. Lahore High Court that one Ali Asghar-Khan's presence before the Court was necessary to effectually and completely proper manner, they are hereby allowed to be impleaded as respondents in the petition. The petitioners are directed to file amended memo. Of the petitioner accordingly. The applications stand disposed of accordingly.
5. Learned D.A.G. States at the bar that National Accountability Bureau is also a necessary party in this petition for the reason that investigation is being conducted by them against the petitioners with regard to some alleged offences committed by them; further that they are contesting - another Constitutional Petition bearing No. D-53/2047, which pertains to any enquiry against the petitioners in respect of the allegations of forgery of some of the documents. Request of learned D.A.G. Is allowed. Notice to the Chairman, N.A.B., Islamabad, may be issued accordingly.
6. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, office is directed to post hearing of the petitioner for its disposal at Katcha peshi stage, provided that the petitioners file 'amended memo.
7. Of the petition before the next date of hearing viz. 7.10.2008.
8. Adjourned to 7.10.2008. The date is fixed on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the hearing be fixed after the end of holy month of Ramdan. /Parties impleaded.