1. ' SYED SAEEDUDDIN NASIR, J.--- This is an application C.M.A. No.6229 of 2014 under Order I, Rule 10(1) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, through which the applicants/interveners seek to be impleaded as a necessary party to this suit.
2. ' Ms. Navin S. Merchant Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/interveners inter alia contended that the applicants/ interveners paid installments to defendants Nos.1 to 4 in time whenever demands were made by them, but were extremely disappointed to see the slow progress at the site despite the fact that the applicants/interveners including other buyers of the project had reposed full faith in defendants No.1, 2 and 4 by paying approximately four billion rupees to the defendant No.1 for their apartments. Needless to mention that the amounts paid by applicants and other buyers are highly disproportionate to the actual cost and constructions which has taken place at site and today the defendants No.1 to 4 have almost abandoned the project.
3. ' The plaintiff has filed above suit against the defendants for rendition of accounts, declaration, injunction, recovery and compensation in this Hon'ble Court and has prayed for judgment and decree against defendants No.1 to 4 requiring the defendants No.1 to 4 render complete accounts of the amounts received, expenditure incurred, amounts transferred out of Pakistan and amounts payable to individual and companies in Pakistan. The plaintiff has also prayed that defendants No.1 to 4 and their employees be restrained from operating their bank accounts maintained with defendant No.5 or causing any transfer/ expenditure from the proceeds received from buyers, including the present applicant/ interveners.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicants/interveners further contended that this Court while disposing of the pending applications of the parties, passed orders on 15-7-2011 and in para 18 of the said order certain conditions were laid down for the protection of the funds invested by the general public in the project known as "Creek. Marina" in Phase-VIII of Defence Housing Authority, Karachi.
5. ' The learned counsel next contended that the above order was passed on 15-7-2011, however, even after three years of passing of the aforesaid order, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have shown any interest in implementing the said order, as a result of which, the "Creek Marina" project is lying completely abandoned, inasmuch as none of the parties of the present suit have filed any contempt proceedings against each other to show their bona fide to implement the order to resume the construction of the project. The applicants/interveners have paid all the installments to the defendant No.1 on time, whenever the demands were made by the defendant No.
1. The applicants/interveners have been regularly visiting the site of the aforesaid project, but were extremely disappointed to see that there is absolutely no progress whatsoever taking place thereon. The learned counsel for the applicants/interveners next contended that the plaintiff and the defendants have abandoned project and in collusion with each other have frustrated the order dated 15-7-2011. Learned counsel for the applicants/interveners next referred to paras (a) and (d) of the prayer clauses of the suit wherein the plaintiff has sought relief in respect of the interest of the amounts paid by the applicants/ interveners, who are also allottees in respect of different flats and apartments in the project known as "Creek Marina". The learned counsel for the applicants/interveners states that in para (a) of the prayer clause the plaintiff is seeking rendition of complete accounts of the amounts received and amounts payable to the individuals and companies by the defendants Nos.1 to 4, therefore, the applicants/interveners are the necessary party to be impleaded in the present suit inasmuch as there interest as aforesaid cannot be fully safeguarded in their absence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/interveners that there are rumors rife in the property market that the defendants Nos.1 to 4 are making efforts to transfer their obligations to third party. Now it has turned out that defendants Nos.1 to 4, with mala fide intention and to usurp the hard earned savings of the applicants/interveners, surreptitiously entered into a sale purchase agreement on 22-2-2011 with one Ahmed Kuli Khan Khattak, who has filed Suit No.911 of 2011 against the aforesaid defendants for declaration, specific performance of sale purchase agreement dated 22-2-2011. The applicants/interveners have also learnt that two other persons have also filed similar suit in this Court against the defendants Nos.1 to 4.
6. ' Turning now to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff against the grant of the instant application, it is preliminary submitted that the instant application is under Order-I Rule 10(1), C.P.C. Which is applicable when the suit has been filed in the name of wrong plaintiff, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. The applicants/interveners have not indicated whether they wish to be impleaded as plaintiffs or as defendants in the suit. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is in respect of certain agreements between them and the applicants/interveners are not a party to those agreements. If the present applicants/interveners are impleaded as a necessary party to the suit, many hundreds of buyers would also be entitled for the same rendering the resolution of the dispute almost impossible.
7. ' It is next contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is within the domain of the plaintiff to choose the other plaintiffs and the defendants in a suit and no party is to be added as the plaintiff or defendant whom the plaintiff does not wish to be added as such.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record in the case file and have come to the conclusion that firstly the application should be converted into an application under Order-I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff to the present suit inter alia seeks rendition of accounts, recovery of compensation of moneys and funds invested by the general public in the project known as "Creek Marina" and has referred to the same in paras 10, 13 and 14 of the plaint as well as in paras of the prayer clause that an amount of three billion rupees has been collected by the defendants Nos.1 to 4 from the general public, which includes all the allottees, including the present, applicants/interveners. The order dated 15-7-2011 passed by this Court in order to protect and safeguard the interest of the allottees/investors of the projects has not been implemented at all for some obscure reason which may be best known to the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.1 to 4.
9. I see no reason, under the circumstances of the case when huge investments of the applicants/interveners are involved in the present suit, A why they should not be impleaded as a necessary party of this suit. It is an admitted position that if the applicants/interveners are impleaded as a necessary party to this suit, their interest in the same shall be protected and well safeguarded, and it shall not adversely the interest of any other party to the suit. I, therefore, convert this application into one under Order-I, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
10. In view of the above since huge amount of money is involved in the form of investment made by the allottees, of whom some are the present applicants/interveners, therefore, I allow this application being C.M.A. No.6229 of 2014 and implead the applicants/interveners as defendant No.6 onwards. The plaintiff is directed to file amended title and amended plaint, if required, within four weeks of the passing of this order.
11. ' Above are the reasons for the short order passed on 13th November, 2014 in the open Court.