1. This is an application under Order 1, rule 10, C. P. C. By Hamdard Trust Laboratories for being joined as co-defendant in the suit.
2. The present suit relates to the transfer of an area of 2.18 acres in survey No. 261 and 3 acres in survey No. 264 in Deh Gujro, Tapo Songal, Taluka Karachi. The plaintiffs claim that this area was allotted to them by the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Karachi under Khatouni dated 26-6-1973.
3. Defendants I, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are also claiming the allotment of the same survey numbers under various Khatounis which are in their possession. It seems the defendants were claiming that a partition was effected and the area and their share of the land bad been separated by metes and bounds f-" and possession banded over to them, and mutations effected. This gave rise ~' to disputes and according to the plaintiff various orders on which the de--fendants claim that the land has been partitioned, were illegal and void for various reasons disclosed in the body of the plaint. The plaintiffs claim a decree for a declaration that the various documents, namely, Khatouni dated 26-6-1973 in the name of defendant No. 1 in respect of survey No. 261, f Khatouni dated 30-1- 1973 in respect of survey No. 264 in favour of defendant No. 1, provisional transfer order dated 13-6- 1973 passed by the Asstt. Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar in respect of survey No. 264, partition order dated 29-6-1973 by A. R. M., Karachi in respect of the same survey number, partition order dated 28-7-1973 passed by the Asstt: Mukhtiarkar, Karachi in respect of survey No. 261, joint partition plan issued by the Asstt: Reha--bilitation Mukhtiarkar, Karachi dated 16-8-1973 and joint approval of construction plan in favour of defendants 1 and 2 are all void and ineffective documents. They have also sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants not to intervene with the plaintiffs title in respect of the land allotted to them and partitioned under orders dated 3-5-1976 by the Reha--bilitation Mukhtiarkar. .
4. The intervenor contends in his application that the Hamdard Trust Laboratories were granted a perpetual lease of the land which is the subject --matter of the suit, by a registered instrument dated 31-1-1962 for the purpose of Institute of Health and Hygiene and Medical Research Hospital.
5. According to them the charges payable under the instrument of lease amount--ing to about Rs.51,000 were paid in four installments up to 1967. However, it was contended by them that they could not raise the construction on the plot due to the suits filed in the civil court by various individuals who were claiming title to the portions of the land and the orders of injunction issued in those suits.
6. It is argued on behalf of the intervenor that the intervenor having title by virtue of the perpetual lease is a necessary party and if they are not joined they would be prejudiced. Mr. S. H. Rizvi learned counsel for the plaintiffs does not oppose the application but Mr. Malik Astam for defendants 3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the application and has contended that the intervenor is not a necessary party in the suit nor is a proper party in the suit in view of the fact that the lease agreement on which reliance has been placed for the purpose of the application does trot identify the land which was the subject-matter of the agreement.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. It appears that the deed of agreement on the basis of which the intervenor claims title to the land which is dated 31-1-1962 merely described the land by boundaries without reference to any survey numbers. In the affidavit in support of the application it is disclosed that this land was acquired by the Government of Pakistan for the Federal Capital area. From the pleadings of the parties it appears that the land which is the subject-matter of this suit was originally evacuee property and was dealt with under the settlement laws. However, no notification of order has been produced by the intervenor to show how the title came to vest in the Government of Pakistan. It might be possible for the intervenor to establish a valid title in it under the instrument of agreement on which it is claiming but for the present nothing has been brought on second to show how the evacuee land came to be vested in the Government of Pakistan. It should not have been difficult for the intervenor to produce the relevant notification under which evacuee land was acquired for the purposes of the Central Government. What is more is that the identity of the land which was the subject of lease agreement between the intervenor and the Government of Pakistan is being seriously questioned.
8. Mr. Tanzilur Rehman's argued that if the intervenor is made a party he would be in a position to establish the identity of the land. But, if the intervenor cannot show prima facie interest in the subject-matter of the suit, it would amount to introducing an entirely new controversy in the suit by a stranger to the suit.
9. Apart from the above, the nature of the present suit and the relief claimed is such that I am unable to agree that the intervenor's interest would in any way be affected. The controversy in the suit, as set out in the plaint, relates to the validity of certain documents, and admittedly, the interveno A was not a party to these documents or proceedings out of which the documents or orders arose.
10. It is quite apparent from the allegations made in the application that the intervenor is claiming title in the property against all the parties to the suit and would, therefore, be in the position of plaintiff vis-a-vis both the parties in the suit. In the circumstances in order to avoid multifariousness in the present suit it would be more proper for the intervenor to file a separate suit for the rights claimed by it against the parties to the suit. It is well establish--ed that the court has discretion in the matter of joinder of parties and having regard to the character of the present suit, I am of the confirmed view that the present case is not a fit case for impleading the intervenor in this suit.
11. For the foregoing reasons this application has no merit and is dismissed with costs.