1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This is an application (C.M.A. No,3622 of 2010) under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.
2. Filed by Muhammad Ramzan, Ashiq Hussain, Arshad Hussain and Abdul Rashid praying therein for joining them as defendants in the present proceedings.
3. ' Facts leading to the present case as set out in the plaint are as under:--- ' That plaintiff is a transporter plying buses in the intercity route from Karachi to Sanghar and vice versa. It is claimed that plaintiff has a valid permit of the timings of vehicles for intercity route from Karachi to Sanghar and vice versa. It is further stated in the plaint that Defendant No,2 vide order dated 11th March, 2010 in exercise of power conferred under section 50(3) of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, on the recommendations of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 granted permission of the timings of vehicles operating on route Karachi to Sanghar and vice versa. It is the case of the plaintiff that all of a sudden without hearing the plaintiff or serving with any show-cause notice an order dated 16th March, 2010 was issued by Provincial Transport Authority Sindh whereby earlier order dated 11th March, 2010 was withdrawn with immediate effect. The present plaintiff filed this suit for seeking declaration that order dated 11th March, 2010 is a valid grant and withdrawal order dated 16th March, 2010 is invalid; unjust and the same has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The plaintiff has also claimed damages in addition to the relief of mandatory injunction. After service the defendants did not appear to contest the proceedings, however present applicants have filed the aforesaid C.M.A. No,3622 of 2010 for joining them as party to the proceedings.
4. It is the case of applicants that order dated 11th March, 2010 was issued in favour of plaintiff in violation of law and the same has rightly been withdrawn. The plaintiff has filed counter-affidavit to the present application denying the contentions of the applicants. It is urged that plaintiff is plying non-air-conditioned buses whereas applicants are plying air-conditioned buses. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that applicants are not necessary party and suit can be decided without their presence.
5. ' Mr. Imran Ahmed, learned counsel fct the applicants, has argued that the present applicants are necessary and proper parties. He prays that applicants be joined as party to the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants are also transporters of the same route on which permit was granted to the plaintiff vide order dated 11th March, 2010. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that under section 50(3) of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, the Provincial Transport Authority is obliged to regulate, the timings of departure of stage carriages, whether they belong to one or more owners. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that on the same timings permit cannot be issued to other transporters to ply their buses on the one and the same time. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that plaintiff has played fraud with the defendants and by suppression of facts managed to obtain permit dated 11th March, 2010. He further submitted that on the representation of the present applicants and other transporters the permit dated 11th March, 2010 was rightly withdrawn by the defendants vide order dated 16th March 2010. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the cases of (1) Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-E-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCM R 2268), (2) Hazrat khan v. Amanullah khan and others (1996 SCM R 1217) and (3) Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain and another (PLD 2002 SC 615).
7. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Arif Shaikh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that plaintiff is plying Non-AC buses whereas the present applicants are plying AC buses on the same route. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that passengers of AC buses and passengers of Non-AC buses are different. As according to learned counsel there is vast difference in fare of both the classes of buses. He further submitted that on the same time two classes of buses can ply concurrently. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that neither the applicants are necessary party nor they are proper party. He further submitted that without their presence the controversy in issue can be effectively dealt with. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that through the present suit the plaintiff has challenged the order dated 16th March, 2010 whereby permit dated 11th March, 2010 has been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the plaintiff has claimed damages against the defendants in this suit. He further submitted that no relief has been claimed against the applicants, hence they need not be joined as party to the proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that permit dated 11th March, 2010 was validly issued to the plaintiff in accordance with law after compliance of provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel has further submitted that permit dated 11th March 2010 has been withdrawn by the defendants without issuance of show-cause notice or hearing. He submitted that since a prejudicial action has been taken against the plaintiff in violation of principle of natural justice same is liable to be set aside. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and another (1994 SCM R 2232).
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as also case law cited by the parties counsel.
9. An examination of section 50(3) of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, shows that the Provincial Transport Authority is obliged under the law to regulate the timings of departure of stage carriages, whether they belong to one or more owners. The provisions of Rule 80 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, provides that where stage carriage permits issued under section 50 in respect of stage carriage services contain regulations for the timings of arrival or departure of stage carriages in A accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 50 save with the permission in writing of the Regional Transport Authority issuing any such permit, not more than one stage carriage at a time in any service shall be permitted to arrive or depart from any particular place in accordance with such regulations. An examination of above referred provision clearly demonstrate that at one time two stage carriages cannot be allowed to ply from one destination to another. Learned counsel for the applicants has rightly argued that by the grant of permit dated 11th March, 2010 in favour of plaintiff provisions of Rules 80 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, have been violated which has caused serious prejudice to the applicants as they are also plying their buses on the same route and on the same timings for which permit was issued to the plaintiff. He submits that for the aforesaid reasons the applicants are necessary and proper parties. He further submitted that applicants be joined as party to the proceedings so that they may place their case before the court.
10. It is settled law that necessary parties are those who ought to have been joined as parties to proceedings and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. Proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the proceedings. The terms "questions involved" include all matters, material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons parties is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The person must, therefore, a person whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief is claimed against him.
11. ' In the case of Ghulam Ahmad Chaudhry v. Akbar Hussain and another (PLD 2002 SC 615) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. In the following words:--- "8. 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 I, Rules 1 and 2 and Order XI, 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."
12. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hazrat Khan v.
13. Amanullah Khan and others (1996 SCM R 1217). In this case a suit was filed against Province of Sindh, Regional Transport Authority Karachi and Regional Transport Authority Hyderabad for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In the relief of declaration Respondent No,1 claimed to be entitled to get the specified timings for his three buses plying between Karachi and Hyderabad via Super Highway. The two reliefs relating to permanent prohibitive and mandatory injunctions were consequential to the aforesaid declaration directing the aforesaid defendants to fix the timing as claimed by Respondent No, 1 and restraining them from interfering with the respondent from plying his buses at the specified timings. The trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And being aggrieved Respondent No,1 preferred an appeal before District Judge, Hyderabad, the Appellate Court granted injunction in the matter. The petitioner in that case who was a transporter came to know about the pendency of above appeal and filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., for joining him as party to the proceedings. Learned District Judge dismissed the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., through a revision, order of District Judge was challenged which was also dismissed by High Court and, thereafter, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan after hearing the parties concluded as under:--- "After having taken into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel, we feel that it will not be proper for us, at this stage to determine the question whether the petitioner owns any buses which ply on the Hyderabad-Karachi route as it seems that he holds a route permit. It was submitted before us, that the permit holders take buses from other on lend and lease basis. This will be a question for determination at the trial stage. However, in view of the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge we feel that having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a necessary party, the learned Judge ought to have passed orders directing him to be joined as a party. We are unable to appreciate what complications would have been created if the petitioner was joined as a party in appeal. It seems the attention of the learned Judge was not invited to the rule laid down by this Court in Karamat Hussain v. Mst. Fatima and others (1969 SCM R 256), to the effect that the introduction of the plaintiff or the defendant for one stage of a suit is an introduction to all stages. It was held in that case that substitution in appeal, even that from an interlocutory order was in the same proceedings, and therefore, once the legal representatives of a deceased party had been brought on the record they were on the record for all purposes. Although this principle was laid down in connection with the substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party to a suit, it is equally applicable to the joinder of a pirty at appellate stage under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C., because the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings, of the suit. A.
14. Learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in Zakira Begum and others v. Aziz Ahmad, etc. (1986 CLC 2410) (2) applied this principle in Constitutional jurisdiction to correct a revisional order passed by the District Judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner's application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C, ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge which, would have enured for the purpose of the suit in consonance with the principle laid down in the cited decision of this Court. "
15. ' From the perusal of above provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 and Motor Vehicles Rules 1969 and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan it can be safely concluded that since timing of applicants buses are being overlapped by issuance of permit dated 11th March, 2010 which has caused prejudice to the applicants. I feel that applicants are necessary party and to avoid any multiplicity of litigation between the parties it seems appropriate to grant this application. No prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff if applicants are joined to the proceedings as defendants. The presence of the applicants is necessary only due to the reason that after withdrawal of permit dated 11th March, 2010 vide order dated 16th March 2010 the present suit was filed and vide order dated 6th April, 2010 the operation of order dated 16th March, 2010 was suspended in these proceedings. After suspension of order by this Court the permit dated 11th March, 2010 has revived and in pursuance thereto the plaintiff is plying his buses on the timings mentioned in the permit and on the route mentioned in such permit. It is the case of present applicants that timings of the plaintiff's buses are overlapping the timings of the applicants' buses which is in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, and also causing financial loss to the applicants. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant this application, which is accordingly granted. The present applicants be joined as defendants to the proceedings, Learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to file amended title within seven days from today. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.