' ATHAR MINALLAH, J.---Through this judgment I shall decide the instant Civil Revision as well as C.R.
No,317 of 2014, re: "Sadruddin Hashwani v. Mian Javed A. Zia, and others". The Civil Revisions are directed against orders dated 11-10-2014 respectively, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the applications filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "C.P.C.") in the respective suits.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the dispute relates to a plot of land measuring 20000 sq. Yards situated in the Diplomatic Enclave, Islamabad (hereinafter referred as the "Property"). The Property was allotted to H.E.Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jabbar Al-Sabbah by the Capital. Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "CDA") in the year 1987. The Deed of Allotment was duly registered by the CDA. Mian Javed A. Zia, i.e, respondent No, 4 in both the petitions, filed a suit for specific performance. He claims that pursuant to agreement to sell dated 15-12-1990 a power of attorney was executed in his favour on 03-7-1991. Messrs Masco Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. i.e, respondent No, 1 in both the petitions, filed a suit for specific performance of sale deed dated 29- 10-1991 read with supplementary agreement dated 22-9-1993 in respect of half portion of the Property. The petitioner claims that the respondent No, 3 is the attorney of the respondent No, 2 and execution of any sale agreement in favour of either Mian Javed A Zia or Messrs Masco Construct (Pvt.) Ltd. Has been by him. It is further asserted that the respondent No, 3 had executed a sale agreement dated 26-2-2005 with the petitioner and pursuant thereto substantial amount was also paid as sale consideration. The petitioner/ applicant has also filed a suit for specific performance in relation to the Property and the same is pending before this Court. Since, the petitioner was not a party in the two separate suits filed by Mian Javed A. Zia and Messrs Masco Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respectively, therefore, the applications under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Were filed. The applications were dismissed vide the impugned orders dated 11-10-2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that; the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the principles and law relating to considering an application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C.; the agreements to sell claimed to have been executed with the respondents are denied; the agreement dated 26-2-2005 executed by the petitioner with the respondent No, 2 through the respondent No, 3 makes him a necessary or at least a proper party; the refusal to implead the petitioner as a party in the pending suits would inevitably lead to multiplicity of litigation; the possession of the Property was given by the respondent No, 2 to the petitioner; the petitioner has spent a considerable amount in constructing a boundary wall around the Property; the petitioner was impleaded as a party in W.P. No, 1460/2006 on the ground that he was a necessary or proper party; the learned trial Court dismissed the applications on the basis of irrelevant and extraneous reasons.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, have argued that; powers of this Court vested under Section 115 of C.P.C. Is of a limited nature; both the civil revisions are liable to be dismissed as neither any illegality has been pointed out nor a case of misreading or non-reading is made out; the agreements to sell with Mian Javed A. Zia and Messrs Masco Construction. (Pvt.) Ltd. Were prior in time to the agreement which is claimed to have been executed with the petitioner; the principle of lis pendens is attracted.
5. The learned counsel have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
6. It is not denied that the petitioner, Mian Javed A Zia and Messrs Masco Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.
Claim to have executed separate agreements to sell in respect of the Property. It is also not denied that the said three claimants have filed separate suits, inter alia, seeking specific performance of the respective agreements to sell. The petitioner in addition to the agreement to sell dated 20-5- 2005 also asserts that possession of the Property was handed over to him by the respondent No, 3.
The petitioner denies that the respondents Nos.2 or 3 had executed the agreements to sell with the other two claimants. Moreover, the petitioner claims that he had paid a considerable amount as sale consideration. The interest of the petitioner in the two suits filed by the other two claimants of the Property is, prima facie, obvious. Whether such interest in the context of the pending suits will have any relevance or not is to be determined by the learned trial Court. It appears that the learned trial Court while deciding the applications filed under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Did not take into consideration the settled principles and law and the same are discussed as follows.
7. In "Central Government of Pakistan and others v. Suleman Khan and others", PLD 1992 SC 590 the august Supreme Court elucidated the scope, application and purpose of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. And held that the same is wide enough and that the said provisions have to be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the complete adjudication of all the questions, which are involved in the lis, one of the purposes being to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Moreover, in "Rauf B. Qadri v. Stare Bank of Pakistan and another" PLD 2002 SC 1111, the august Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. In the context of power to transpose has held that the said power is derived amongst others from Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. The august Supreme Court, therefore, while referring to Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Has enunciated the principle that the provisions ibid have to be interpreted liberally in the interest of complete adjudication of all the questions involved in a lis and in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. It has further been held that such power by the Court is invariably exercised generously and technical hurdles are always bypassed for consideration of effectual adjudication and inexpensive access to justice. Reliance is also placed on "Said Alam and another v. Raja Sohrab Khan and 8 others", 1970 SCM R 639. It is, therefore, obvious that a party is a necessary party if he/she ought to have been jointed and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. On the other hand persons whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all question involved in the suit, are proper parties.
8. In the light of the above principles and law elucidated by the august Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant petitions, the petitioner ought to have been impleaded as a defendant by accepting the applications under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C.
The presence of the petitioner is, therefore, essential to enable the trial Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions and matters material for a proper decision, and simultaneously avoiding multiplicity of litigation.
9. For what has been stated above, both the petitions are allowed. The applications under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Are deemed to have been accepted. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a defendant in both the suits. It would be pertinent to observe that the parties may consider filing an application for consolidating the three suits filed in respect of the Property. This Court expects that the learned trial Court shall endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and within a reasonable time.