1. ' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant revision, the applicant has impugned the order dated 18-5-2009 passed by the Vllth Additional District Judge (South) Karachi in Civil Suit No,31 of 2008, whereby an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Filed on behalf of applicant/defendant, has been dismissed. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed parawise reply/objections to the instant revision application, whereas the respondent No,4 who has been represented through Messrs S. Amjad Hussain and Co. Advocates, who, after having shown appearance on one or two occasions, have chosen not to proceed with the matter.
2. ' On 20-8-2010, when the matter was taken-up for hearing of application as well as for Katcha Peshi, both the learned counsel for the contesting parties agreed for the disposal of the instant revision at Katcha Peshi stage.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the impugned order is based on erroneous facts and misconceived application of Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C. To the facts of the instant case. It is contended by the learned counsel that an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed on behalf of the applicant/defendant No,1 with the prayer to implead Messrs Prime Tankers as a party to the proceedings, as according to learned counsel, the applicant/defendant No,1 is working as an agent of such proposed Intervenor. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred to Para 9 of the plaint as well as different E-Mails filed along with instant revision as annexures "A", "A1/27 to A-1/40". Per learned counsel, the impugned mail dated 27-32008, which is claimed to be defamatory by the respondents, was issued by the applicant in his capacity as an agent, hence claimed vicarious liability of the principal i.e. The proposed Intervenor. It has been further argued that the learned VIIth Additional District Judge (South) Karachi has not given any cogent reasons or grounds for rejecting the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. And further erred by relying on the provisions of Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C., which are not attracted under the facts and circumstances of the case. Per learned counsel, the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Are independent in nature and can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings, whereas the scope of the provisions of Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C. Is limited to the extent of raising objection about non-joinder of a necessary party. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate the scope of the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments reported as Hidayat Ullah v. Zahir Muhammad and 5 others PLD 2005 Peshawar 184 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1975 SC 463.
4. ' Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the instant revision application. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the scope of revision is limited, wherein the applicant is required to show any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order. Per learned counsel, the instant revision is in furtherance of an attempt by the applicant, to delay the proceedings and confuse the issue involved in the instant case. Per learned counsel, the matter pertains to a defamatory E-Mails issued by the applicant against the respondents, who are highly reputable Lawyers Firm. Per learned counsel, in view of the provisions of section 2(iii)(dd) of the Defamation (Amendment) Act, 2004, the applicant is the originator of such defamatory material and cannot be allowed to absolve himself from such liability by attempting to shift the same on third party in the garb of principal and agent relationship, which even otherwise is next attracted in the instant case.
5. ' Per learned counsel, written statement has been filed by the applicant/defendant No,1 in the instant case, issues have already been framed and no objection whatsoever about misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties was raised by the defendant in this regard. It is further argued that the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Filed by the applicant for impleading Messrs Prime Tankers as a party to the proceedings at this stage is not only hit by provision of Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C., but also reflects upon the mala fide on the part of the defendant No,1, who wants to linger on the proceedings and cause delay. Per learned counsel, no ground whatsoever has been mentioned in the application filed under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Nor any relationship or direct nexus of the proposed intervenor with the present applicant/defendant No,1, or the instant controversy has been established. It is further contended that the claim of the applicant/defendant No,1 for being agent of Messrs Prime Tankers is equally misconceived and contrary to the record. Learned counsel pointed out that admittedly defendant No,1 is the employee of respondent No,4, whereas respondent No,4 has chosen not to contest the instant revision application. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the various e-mails referred by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there is not a single document on record nor any such email which could possibly establish that the applicant/defendant No,1 is the agent of Messrs Prime Tankers, or has sent the impugned defamatory email against the respondents Nos.1 and 3 at the behest of Messrs Prime TankeRs, It is further argued that on bare perusal of the correspondence in the shape of email it is crystal clear that the applicant/defendant No, 1 is the originator of the impugned defamatory email, hence liable to bear damages personally, and cannot escape such liability by making an attempt of dragging a stranger to the proceedings.
6. ' It has been further argued that instant revision is time barred as the provisions of Article 12 of the Limitation Act, are not attracted in the case of Revision In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following reported cases.
(1) Pakistan Banking Council and another v. Ali Maohtaram Naqvi and another 1985 SCM R 714.
(2) Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286.
(3) Said Muhammad v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others 2001 M LD 1546.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Precise controversy in the instant revision revolves around the application and scope of the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of this case. It appears that the facts relating to chronology of events before the learned trial Court are not disputed, however the validity and application of Order I and Rule 10, C.P.C. Under the facts has been disputed.
8. ' On perusal of the provision of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., it appears that if the requirement of Order I, rule 10 are completed, only then, a necessary proper party can be brought on record with the leave of the Court. It further appears that the power of adding party to proceeding is not a question of initial jurisdiction but a discretionary jurisdiction, which has to be exercised, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In my humble opinion, necessary party is one which ought to have been joined as a parry in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. Similarly a person, against whom no relief is sought or can possibly be granted, cannot be termed as a necessary and proper party.
9. ' In the instant case, it appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a suit against the applicant and respondent No,4, under Defamation Ordinance, 2002, seeking damages of Rs, 20 Million. It further appears that relief has been sought mainly against the applicant on his issuance of impugned e-mail, which is alleged to have contained defamatory material against the respondents Nos.1 to 3, whereas there seems no grievance whatsoever having been raised by the respondents against Messrs Prime Tankers i.e. The proposed intervenor, nor any defence has been taken by the applicant/defendant in his written statement regarding involvement of proposed intervenor i.e. Messrs Prime Tankers in the instant suit. No issue has been formulated which could possibly justify the inclusion of proposed intervenor as a necessary, party in the suit proceeding, nor any such ground was raised by the applicant through application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C.
10. ' It will not be out of place to refer to the provision of sections 14 and 15 of Defamation (Amendment) Act, 2004, which read as follows:--
(14) Court to decide the cases expeditiously:---The Court shall decide a case under this Ordinance within a period of ninety days;
(15) Appeal:- An appeal against the final decision and decree of the Court shall lie to the High Court within thirty days and the High Court shall decide the appeal within sixty days: ' Provided that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order of the Court.
11. ' The bare perusal of these provisions clearly reflects upon the intention of the legislature that the cases filed under the Defamation (Amendment) Act, 2004, are required to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably, within the time frame provided under the enactment.
12. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has properly exercised its discretion, while dismissing the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., as no valid ground was raised by the applicant. The applicant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order which requires no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
13. Accordingly; there is no merit in the instant revision application, which is dismissed along with the listed application.
14. ' As regards the objection about the limitation I would abstain from dilating upon such issue as neither there has been any office objection in this regard nor the same was specifically raised by the respondent in his written objection filed in the instant revision application.
15. ' Revision stand disposed of in the above terms. 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.