' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.---Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, recovery of maintenance from October, 2009 till expiry of Iddat after decree of Khula, recovery of dowry articles and personal belongings as per list annexed or in the alternate price equivalent to the value thereof. In the said suit, respondent No,1 filed his written statement whereas respondent No,2 filed an application for deletion of his name on the ground that no relief has been sought against him. Further he has nothing to do with the dispute between petitioner and respondent No,1 being father of respondent No, 1 . An application was also filed by the petitioner wherein she sought to place on record certain documents relating to dacoity committed when she was residing in the house of respondent No,1 and other documents relating to said dacoity. The Judge. Family Court, Rawalpindi accepted the application of the petitioner as well as respondent No,2. The order dated 10-12-2011 on the application of respondent No,2 is impugned before this Court in the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,2 is necessary party to the proceedings as he is the one who has received the gold ornaments from police on recovery in case F.I.R. No,367 of 2004; that on the one hand, Judge Family Court allowed the petitioner's application to place on record the documents relating to dacoity, recovery and Superdari of recovered articles including gold ornaments which clearly shows the possession of certain articles with respondent No,2 and on the other hand, accepted the application of respondent No,2; that both the orders are contrary to each other; that in view of law laid down in (2011 SCR 1591) Muhammad Arif and others v.
District and Sessions Judge, Silakot and others, respondent No,2 is necessary party to the proceedings, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that no relief has been sought against respondent No,2, therefore the order passed by the learned Judge Family Court is in accordance with law and does not require interference by this court; that dacoity was committed in the year 2004, recovery was effected in the year 2005 whereas desertion between the parties was held in the year 2009 and during four years, the petitioner was using the articles, therefore on this account also the order is in accordance with the facts of the matter. -4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
5. The perusal of plaint revels that in Para No,3, the petitioner has stated as under:-- That the father of plaintiff belongs to well off family of the town and is an industrialist, thus the parents and other family members of the plaintiff gave dowry articles and personal belongings to the plaintiff as per list annexed with the plaint. The contents of annexed list may kindly be read as part of this para. All the said articles are at present in the custody of defendants.
6. Perusal of above Para of the plaint clearly shows that petitioner has specifically alleged that dowry articles and personal belongings are at present in the custody of the respondents/defendants. Further West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 Section 2(1)(d) defines the word party as under:-
(d) "Party" shall include any person whose presence as such is considered necessary for a proper decision of the dispute and whom the Family Court adds as a party, to such dispute;
7. The above definition clearly states that any person whose presence is necessary for proper decision of the dispute shall be added as party to such dispute. The payer made by the petitioner in her suit although does not mention anything with regard to respondents Nos.1 and 2 but the same is for the recovery of dowry articles and personal belongings, which is reproduced as under:- - It is therefore requested that a decree for-- ' Dissolution of Marriage on the basis of "KHULLA' and ' Recovery of Maintenance from October 2009 till expiry of iddat after decree of Khulla @ Rs, 10,000/- per month.
' Recovery of Dowry Articles and Personal Belongings as per list annexed or in the alternate recovery of amount equivalent to the value thereof and mentioned against each articles.
8. When the said prayer is read with the other contents of the plaint especially the Para No,3 reproduced above clearly show that third part of the prayer is with reference to both the respondents.
' Furthermore, case made out by the petitioner in her plaint requires evidence for determining whether the respondent No,2 is necessary party or not, therefore the Judge Family Court was wrong to hold that:- "There is nothing in the plaint of the plaintiff which shows that the dowry articles are in possession of the defendant No,2 therefore, the name of the defendant No,2 being unnecessary party to the suit is deleted and the respondent/plaintiff is directed to submit the amended plaint on next date of hearing."
9. The word party as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 does not limit a family suit only between the spouses. It clearly includes any third party whose presence is necessary for the adjudication of the matter.
10. In the case in hand learned trial court on the one hand allowed the application to place on record document which prima facie established the possession of respondent No,2 regarding certain items mentioned in the list of dowry articles and on the other hand application for deletion of respondent No,2 was allowed both these are self contradictory. Further as mentioned above the learned Judge Family E Court could not pass order of deletion without recording evidence.
11. Even otherwise, the general principle of law is that where persons are jointly entitled or liable, they must he made parties to the suit otherwise, the suit may not result into an effective, enforceable on binding decree.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Arif and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot and others (2011 SCM R 1591) held as under:-- ' The definition of the 'Party' in the Act is absolutely clear that a family suit cannot be restricted inter se the spouses only i,e, one plaintiff against one defendant when others are considered necessary for proper decision of the dispute or require addition to such dispute. A family suit is not a sparring match in a wrestling ring where one wins and the other loses or gives up on injury. The Act does not relegate a family suit to a merciless war to bring defect on one and victory on the other in the judicial battle field. ----Such a result can only be achieved if other persons who for some credible reason are considered necessary or proper or relevant or related to the dispute and its decision, are also parties in the suit. The clear examples are the suits for the recovery of dowry items, dower property or personal property/belongings (of wife) alleged to be in the possession or use of persons other than the husband or wife. Such persons will per force need impleadment or addition as parties for a comprehensive, final, effective and proper decision of the dispute(s) and enforcement of the decree(s).
13. In view of above discussion, respondent No,2 is necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the matter, therefore, while allowing the instant petition, the impugned order 10-12-2011 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi is set aside with no order as to costs.
' As this is a family dispute therefore, a direction is given to the learned Judge Family Court to decide the matter within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of order of this court without fail and compliance report be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench.