1. ' Heard learned counsel for the parties on applications under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. Bearing C.M.A.
2. No,3550 of 2008, C.M.A. No,3113 of 2008, C.M.A.. No,2938 of 2007 and C.M.A. No,2937 of 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 not 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 MLD. 9, wherein the following observations were recorded:-- "Now, I proceed to examine the case-law cited by Mr. Suleman Kassim. In Mst. Saeeda Akhtar PLD 1981 Lah. 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 learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court made reference to the case of Beli Ram and Brothers v. Ram Lal and others AIR 1925 Lah:
644. In the case of Suleman Zulfiqar 1986 MLD 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 the purpose 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 Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Khursheed v. Malika and others 1983 SCMR 534 was followed by the said Division Bench. In Mst. Jannat and others 1987 MLD 2266, a learned Single Judge of this Court defined the expression "proper 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 terms "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 Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1975 SC 643. In Muhammad Humayun 1991 MLD 1957 the Lahore High Court dismissed a writ petition and upheld the order of Additional District Judge impleading respondent No,1 as one of the defendant 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 adjudicate upon and settle and points involved in the suit as the said person was a proper party. In Muhammad Siddiq 1994 CLC 1374 it was held by a Single Judge of Lahore High Court that in a matter of University, Provincial Government was necessary party and, therefore, the Court was obliged to implead the Government as necessary party in the case and was not justified to decree the suit without first impleading the Provincial Government as one of the parties and that no party should be saddled with liability without affording an opportunity to defend itself. It was further held that the adjudication of the dispute is to be done in one forum to avoid any conflicting or contradictory decisions. In Muhammad Arshad 1994 CLC 1967 it was held by a Single Judge of Lahore High Court that a defendant who was a party to a previous litigation was necessary and proper party and impleadment of such party was necessary even to decide the plea of res judicata raised by the other defendants. In this reported case, the party seeking to be joined as one of the defendants was also a joint owner/co-sharer of the property in suit."
5. 'So also in Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain through Legal Heirs and another PLD 2002 SC 615, following observations were recorded:-- "A wide judicial discretion is vested in the Court to add parties at any stage of the suit in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. It may be observed that where a necessary party is not impleaded, the decree may not be binding on it. Likewise, a person against whom no relief is asked for, may not be a necessary party but he may be a proper party. For the purpose of addition of parties, the Court is governed by provisions of Order 1, Rules 1 and 2 and Order II, Rule 3, C.P.C. In law a Court is empowered to bring on record only necessary or proper parties. Once a suit has been instituted, parties can be added only with the leave of the Court and not otherwise. Power of adding parties is not a question of initial jurisdiction but of judicial discretion, which has to be exercised having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, learned High Court seized with the appeal, arising out of the suit, was fully competent to add or strike out name of any person to the suit for a just, fair and effectual adjudication of the controversy. It is true that the High Court has not assigned in-depth reasons for impleadment of the vendor, who transferred the property in favour of the petitioner, the fact remains that the High Court was fully conscious of its judicial discretion and necessity of having the stance of the vendor after the controversy raised by the respondent with regard to his authority to dispose of the property in suit."
6. 'The applicants of the above stated four C.M.As. Have alleged that the petitioners, after having obtained financial loans from different financial institutions, have either disposed of their respective properties or, in any other manner, have managed to avoid repayment of the loan amounts with mark-up thereon; so also the learned counsel for Intervener Messrs. A.H. International Employees Union has argued that the workers of the said Union are entitled to recover their service dues from the petitioners, which may run in crores of rupees and that in case the petitioners successfully manage to avoid such payment, the workers are likely to suffer irreparable loss.
7. Suffice it to say that impleading the applicants of the above stated four C.M.As. As respondents, would never mean to say that pleas raised by the Interveners stand accepted but on the contrary such pleas will be subject to proof thereof strictly in accordance with the provisions of Qanun- eShahadat.
8. 'Even though the applicants may not be proper as well as necessary parties, yet, for the purpose that they may properly assist the Court to dispose of the petition in a proper manner, they are hereby allowed to be impleaded as respondents in the petition. The petitioners are directed to file amended memo. Of the petition accordingly. The applications stand disposed of accordingly.
9. 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 of 2007, which pertains to an 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, NAB Islamabad may be issued accordingly.
10. ' On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, office is directed to post hearing of the petition for its disposal at Katcha Peshi stage, provided that the petitioners file amended memo of the petition before the next date of hearing viz: 7-10-2008.
11. ' Adjourned to 7-10-208. 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 Ramadan.