1. ' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs fur damages under the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance, 1980. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of deceased Haji Tayyab, who was Foreman and employed by the defendant No,3. The defendant No,1 is ship/Vessel owned by the defendant No,2, the defendant No,5 is Captain/Master of defendant No,1 and defendant No,6 is a crane operator, while the defendant. No,4 is a contract Stevedore. It is further alleged in the plaint that the vessel berthed at Karachi Port on 27th March, 2009 at Berth No,21, West Wharf. The defendant No,3 engaged the services of defendant No,4 for the purposes of loading/unloading of the cargo. The vessel was in a dilapidated condition, and most of the parts of the vessel were in the extremely decayed condition, the defendants had a duty to take all reasonable precautions but they did not pay any heed. The work of unloading the cargo commenced on 2nd April, 2009. The defendants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 boarded the vessel and was in course of carrying out the duties, however, during the process of unloading, the beams attached to the crane of the vessel, broken from its appending hook and fell down on the deceased, smashing and fracturing the right side of his skull and killed him instantaneously.
2. ' After filing of this suit, the plaintiffs filed application (C.M.A. No,467 of 2009) with the request to implead Mirza Shahid Baig, Director, Directorate of Dock Works Safety and Bureau Veritas as defendants Nos.7 and 8. The notice was issued to the proposed defendants. The learned Standing Counsel has also filed an application C.M.A. No,35 of 2010 in which it has been stated that instead of Mr. Mirza Shahid Baig, Federation of Pakistan, through Ministry of Labour and Man Power be made as defendant, if necessary.
3. ' Today, three Miscellaneous Applications are fixed for hearing i,e, C.M.A. No,35 of 2010, C.M.A. No,467 of 2009 and C.M.A. No,356 of 2009, which are being disposed of by .This common order as under:--
(1) C.M.A. No,35 of 2010.--In this application the learned Standing Counsel has requested that instead of Mirza Shahid Baig, the Federation of Pakistan may be impleaded as defendant No,7. After lengthy arguments, the learned Standing Counsel and Mirza Shahid Baig present in Court conceded to that let Mirza Shahid Baig and Federation of Pakistan both be impleaded as defendants Nos.7 and 8 in this suit. By consent this application is allowed. Let the plaintiff to file amended plaint and supply the same to the newly added defendants Nos.7 and 8, thereafter, the defendants Nos.7 and 8 will file their written statement within 30 days positively. Mirza Shahid Baig present in Court, complaints that the plaintiff No,4, Mr. Muhammad Arif, who is also the representative of all other plaintiffs, is continuously lodging different type of vexatious complaints against him to the different departments including FIA, in spite of the pendency of the Criminal case, in which he is fully participating. He prayed that the plaintiffs may be directed to stop all such activities, which are causing severe mental pain, distress and agony to Mr. Shaid Baig.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Umar Lakhani learned counsel for the plaintiffs and plaintiff No,4 himself present undertake that in future they will not lodge any complaint against Mirza Shahid Baig and will wait for the decision of pending criminal case and this suit for damages. The plaintiff No,4, further undertakes that he will withdraw his complaint, from F.I.A. Department, which he has lodged against Mirza Shahid Baig.
5. ' The application is disposed of in the above terms. (2) C.M.A. No,467 of 2009 ' The plaintiff has filed this application to implead Mirza Shahid Baig and Bureau Veritas for impleading them defendants Nos.7 and 8 respectively in the present suit. So far as Mirza Shahid Baig is concerned he has already been impleaded as defendant No,7, by virtue of consent order passed in C.M.A. No,35 of 2010, therefore, for him, this application has become infructuous. However, for the purpose of "Bureau Veritas", Mr. Sohail Rana learned counsel, appeared on their behalf and argued that the proposed defendant is not a proper and necessary party. In the arguments, Mr. Umer Lakhani referred to paragraph 6 of the affidavit attached with this application in which specific role has been assigned to the proposed defendant that they issued a clean bill of fitness after purported examination, therefore, they are vicariously liable. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed defendant has pointed out that the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Abdul Karim Siddiqui, Chief Executive Officer of the proposed defendant No,8 in which he has stated that defendant No,8 is not a necessary party in the above suit. He has further alleged that all the wires for the derricks assembly (Toping reason, having wire, pre-instal wire, Side Gear) were in good condition, there was no sign of wear and tear of these wires. All the wires were properly greased and all blocks follies were in very good condition. This unfortunate incident took place due to mistake and mishandling and damage to the ships property caused one person's death and one person injured. He has also submitted that the unfortunate incident was due to human error and not due to any defect in ship.
6. The C.E.O. Of the proposed defendant No,8 fully denied that there was any fault in the ship, however, they have not denied that they did not issue clear bill of fitness after examination of the ship. All these questions can only be resolved once (?) the proposed defendant is made party and matter is concluded after proper evidence. Since a clear allegation has been levelled against the proposed defendants by the plaintiff, therefore, it would be appropriate that they should be made party. The learned counsel for proposed defendant relied upon a judgment in the case of Province of the Punjab v. Messrs Qavi Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. Reported in 2007 M LD 89 and made much emphasis that his client is not a proper and necessary party. In this very judgment, the application was dismissed on the ground that a person not party to a contract is neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for damages but in this case the plaintiffs are not enforcing any contractual obligations but they are simply seeking relief of damages on account of alleged negligence of the defendants. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment pronounced in the case of Mansoor Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Farooq and other reported in 1999 M LD 3329. In this judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that party against whom no relief has been sought in the suit was not a necessary party. In this case obviously before impleading the party there was no case of any relief claimed against the proposed defendants. The plaintiff has asserted that after filing the counter affidavit of defendant No,6, to C.M.A. No,356 of 2009, it is brought on the record that besides the present defendants some other defendants are also vicariously liable due to their gross negligence therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this application. If the proposed defendants will become party, naturally the plant will be amended with necessary reliefs and assignment of role against the proposed defendants jointly and severally. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment pronounced in the case of Mrs. Rahat Ali v. Dr. Saeeda Rehman, reported in 2002 CLC 96 in which, the learned Single Bench of this Court while delivering an exhaustive judgment on principle of Law of Tort, observed that if there are more than one tortfeasor, all tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. It is prerogative of the plaintiff to proceed against the principal wrongdoer alone or join other tortfeasor as well. Since it was the case of wrong surgery and negligence on the part of doctor and paramedical staff, therefore, the learned single Judge observed that if the plaintiff considered that hospital or the nursing staff were responsible or liable to make good the loss or damage she was exposed to, there was no impediment in her way to have joined them as a party by invoking Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.
7. The above judgment is in fact based on the term joint tortfeasors. According to Black's Law Dictionary sixth Edition, the term refers to two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property. It further refers to those persons who have acted in concert in their tortuous conduct and act together in committing wrong, or whose acts if independent of each other, unite in causing single injury. Similarly the vicarious liability means "the imposition of liability on one person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on a relationship between the two persons. Indirect or imputed legal responsibility for acts of another; for example, the liability of an employee, or, a principal for torts and contracts of an agent".
8. ' Though, the present case is not the case of negligence committed by the hospital or doctors or paramedical staff, but in this case also, the plaintiffs have arrayed all responsible persons including the government official who allegedly cleared the documents, the vessel, the vessel owner, the surveyor company and others as proper and necessary parties and based their case on the principle of joint tortfeasors and vicarious liability, therefore, the plaintiffs are at liberty to implead the defendants, allegedly found negligent in performance of their duties. However, it will be seen only after evidence that how many persons are involved and committed negligence in performance of their duties due to which an unfortunate .Incident took place. Now I feel it appropriate to implead "Bureau Veritas" as defendant No,9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint and supply a copy to the proposed defendant No,9, therefore, they may be at liberty to file their written statement within a period of 30 days. Application allowed.
(3) CMA No,356 of 2009.
9. ' Mr. Umer Lakhani learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press this application. According to him, the bank guarantee has already been furnished; therefore, this application has served its purpose, Application dismissed as not pressed. 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.