' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The present C.R. No,2813 of 2004, as also C.R. No, 2999 of 2004 are being disposed of together, as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The plaintiffs, who are not arrayed as party to the present revision petitions, after procuring requisite permission from the Advocate-General, filed a suit under section 92 against the respondents/defendants, which was contested by latter. Issues were framed, but before the evidence of the plaintiffs could commence, the petitioner of the noted revision petition i,e, C.R.
No,2813 of 2004, moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. To be arrayed as a co-plaintiff in the case.
3. The mainstay of the petitioner for his impleadment, according to the contents of the application, is as under:- "(4) The applicant is directly affected by the suit as trust property has been sold. He has in possession documents to establish this assertion.
(5) As an illustration of his capacity to produce evidence about illegal sale of trust property by defendant Malik, two documents are attached with this application as Annex. A & B.
(6) In addition to the documents attached above, the applicant is also in a position to produce evidence about illegal sale of properties worth billion of rupees all over Pakistan."
4. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that according to the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 7, the documents referred to as Annexures "A" and "B" in the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C, were never filed along with the application. Be that as it may, it has been noticed that such documents or any other document which according to the petitioner were/are in his possession have not been placed on the record of the present cases, this also is the position in the other revision petition as well.
5. The application was resisted by the respondents and vide order dated 19-10-2004, it has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. I have been told that after the above order, the plaintiff examined the present petitioner as P.W.1 on 18-12-2004, who according to his statement, produced some documents and also asserted to produce more, but this was not done when the plaintiffs' learned counsel namely Dr. A. Basit, who is/was the counsel for the petitioner as well made a statement dated 19-3-2005, closing their affirmative evidence. The respondents/defendants adduced their evidence in affirmative/rebuttal and whereafter through a statement dated 7-5- 2005, the counsel for the plaintiffs even closed the evidence in rebuttal and the case is fixed for final argument.
6. In the meantime, against the impugned order dated 19-10-2004, the petitioner came before this Court in the present revision petition and vide order dated 30-11-2004, a pre-admission notice was issued and as an interim relief, the learned trial Court was directed not to render any final judgment with the consequence that the suit stands dormant despite the trial having been complete.
7. The relevant facts of the other Civil Revision No,2999 of 2004 are that the plaintiffs were given last opportunity to produce their evidence when the petitioners of this petition moved another application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Through Dr. A Basit, Advocate, seeking their impleadment as co-plaintiffs almost on identical and similar grounds. This request too has been declined vide impugned order dated 26-11-2004, hence the petition.
8. Dr. Abdul Basit, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the suit brought under section 92 by the plaintiffs of the case is in the representative capacity meant for protecting the trust property, which was created for the religious and charitable purposes etc, therefore, every beneficiary of the trust, as the petitioners have that character and status, is entitled to be arrayed as a party to the suit. It is also submitted that the petitioners have certain important documents in their possession, which would establish as to how the trust property was and is being mismanaged and misappropriated and therefore, their impleadment would facilitate the effectual and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the matter. He has vehemently argued that the petitioners, keeping in view the nature of the present suit, are necessary parties and no effective decree can be passed in their absence, therefore, their impleadment has been wrongly declined by the Court below. In addition to the above, what Dr. A. Basit, Advocate described as a broader submission, it is argued that the suit by the plaintiffs has been properly lodged after complying with the provisions of section 92 C.P.C, therefore, the criteria for the petitioners' impleadment is governed by the said section read with Order I Rules 8 and 10, C.P.C, and in view of these provisions, they being proper party should be impleaded. It is also contended that in a situation, where the plaintiff of a suit under section 92 is not pursuing the matter with due diligence, a beneficiary, whose interests are also involved and are likely to be jeopardized in the event of any adverse decision, is a necessary party. Lastly, it has been argued that in the present suit, the petitioners are the beneficiaries and have a right to be impleaded as a party and the refusal in this behalf by the Court below is against the norms of justice and is arbitrary.
9. Conversely, Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 7, has appraised the Court about the proceedings of the trial, by referring to the dates and argued that the petitioner has appeared as P.W.1 and produced certain documents in evidence, therefore, he has availed the opportunity in this behalf and the cause/reasons on the basis of which the impleadment was sought had been achieved; likewise, the petitioners in the other revision petition could also have appeared as the witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not necessary party, because their presence is not imperative for the decision of the case, and it is not even their case that without their decision of the case, and it is not even their case that without their presence, no effective decree can be passed. As far as the petitioner's assertion being proper party is concerned, it is only based upon the claim of being beneficiary and also for producing certain evidence, and this opportunity the petitioner in this case has already availed while appearing as P.W.1, whereas the others did not come forward. ,Mr. Salman Akram Raja, Advocate has further argued that the applications were filed with mala fide intention and the purpose behind it was to delay the process of trial and also to cause prejudice to the respondents. He defended the order by also submitting that the inordinate delay in filing such application is a ground of refusal by the Court below to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners, and such an exercise should not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction.
10. Heard. There can be no cavil with the proposition that a suit under section 92, C.P.C. Inherently is representative in nature but having its own feature and kind, it can neither be strictly termed as an ordinary civil lis between two adversary litigants nor can be equated to a representative suit generally filed under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. From the letter, spirits, scope and concept of the said section, the object is to safeguard the trust and the rights of the public in the trust; furthermore, that the suits against the trustees of a public trust should be regulated by law and institution of indefinite number of vexatious, harassing and reckless suits in relation to the matters enumerated in the section must be prevented. It is for this reason that the Advocate-General, who is the principal law officer of the Province and the most responsible person has been empowered, authorized and conferred with the sole prerogative to invoke the legal mechanism for the protection of the trust etc; thus when he himself files a suit, it is a representative suit for all intents and purposes, with the same effects of the judgment/decision as rendered by the Court in ordinary representative suits, however, none of the persons having interest in the trust in this suit shall be entitled to be arrayed as a co-plaintiff along with the Advocate-General by taking resort to section 92, Order I, Rules 1, 8 or 10, C.P.C.
11. The other mode envisaged for the institution of the suits under section 92, C.P.C. Is on account of the permission of the Advocate-General obtained by two or more persons who are interested in the trust. In the eventuality, the Advocate-General in line with the object of the law, is not expected to grant the permission as a matter of right or course or in routine, rather after being satisfied about the bona fide and the motive of the said persons and that they are not intending to assert any of their personal rights. Once the permission is granted and the suit is instituted, though it retains its special representative character, but at the same time, the Court shall not follow and adhere to the provisions of Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. In issuing notice to any other person or by public advertisement. It may be pertinent to state here that in this situation too, the verdict of the Court shall carry the same effect as having been passed in any ordinary representative suit. The Court however, in this category, can add or delete the persons to the suit on the touchstone of the rule of "necessary" or "proper" parties, obviously while exercising its discretion properly.
' In view of the above, it is, therefore, to be determined, whether the petitioners are the necessary/proper parties. According to the settled law, the necessary parties are those who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence, no effective decree or order can be passed.
From the scheme of the law mentioned above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court if the petitioners qualify the noted criteria. As regards the plea that the petitioners are the proper parties, it may be stated that being beneficiaries of the trust, if they meet the condition and are able to show that their presence before the Court would facilitate the effective adjudication of the matter, the discretion could be exercised in their favour. The petitioners in their respective applications have only given one ground and the reason to be arrayed as the co- plaintiffs i,e, being in possession of certain documents. The petitioner in the noted revision petition obviously was examined by the plaintiffs of the case and had the ample chance of producing every document he had in his possession and power to prove the case of the plaintiffs. Whereas the petitioners of the other case did not appear in the matter and thus, they cannot make a grouse that the opportunity of proving the case of the plaintiffs was not provided to them. They cannot even complain that they were left out by the plaintiffs, because as has been narrated in the factual backdrop of the case, Dr. A. Basit, Advocate throughout had represented the plaintiffs and the petitioners in the trial and also in these petitions. It is he who made the statement to close the evidence of the plaintiffs both at the affirmative and the rebuttal stage. The documents, which the petitioners want to produce still remains in mystery; and this Court even has not been taken into confidence about the nature and the contents thereof. This to my mind has serious reflection upon the petitioners' claim and on this score alone, when they are held not to be a necessary party, the requisite relief can be declined to them.
12. To implead or otherwise a "proper party" is the discretion of the Court. The trial Court has exercised such discretion against the petitioners and for whatever has been mentioned above, I do not find myself inclined in my revisional jurisdiction to either interfere in such order or to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioners to be made a party to the case.
' In the light of above, both the revisions have no merits and are hereby dismissed.