This order shall govern C.M.Nos.7,8 & 9 of 2018. The said three applications have been filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC for the impleadment of applicants as parties to the main petition i.e., Writ Petition No.196881 of 2018. Through C.M. No.7 of 2018 prayer has been made that the applicant, Iqbal Ahmad, be impleaded as "petitioner" whereas the claim of the applicants of other two applications is that they may be joined as "respondents".
2. The applicant, Iqbal Ahmad, in his application i.e. C.M. No.7 of 2018 has maintained that since the NAB is investigating into the matter with respect to his property, he has interest in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.19688 of 2018 and, therefore, may be impleaded as petitioner. On the other hand, the applicants in C.M.Nos.8 & 9 of 2018, who are incidentally practicing advocates of this Court, are seeking their impleadment as "respondents" so as to assist the Court on the law point raised in the said constitutional petition. In support of their plea reference has been made to the case of "Syntron Limited v . Huma Ijaz and others " (2014 SCMR 531 ).
3. Heard. The relevant provision of law governing the controversy involved in these three applications is provided under Rule 10(2) of Order I CPC. This law provides for the addition of (a) necessary party , and (b) proper party .
Necessary parties consist of persons, who "ought to have been joined" that is, persons necessary to the constitution of the suit/petition without whom no decree/order can be passed at all. Now, question arises as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the present applicants may be declared as necessary party . In the case on hands, Lawyers Foundation for Justice through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 i.e. Writ Petition No.196881 of 2018 has sought declaration to the effect that after promulgation of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 made in pursuance of P.C.O.No.I of 1999 has ceased to be a law and is non-existent, non-est and a dead letter . The question raised in the constitutional petition is a pure question of law and can be decided effectually and completely in the presence of existing respondents, that is, (i) Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs & Human Rights, Cabinet Block, Islamabad; and, (ii) National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad through its Chairman. The applicants are not necessary parties and, therefore, cannot be allowed to join the proceedings. This view finds support from the case of "Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani v. Punjab Province and others" (1982 CLC 590) wherein it has been held that it is not possible to implead every one, who has been conferred certain advantage by a particular law in a general way which benefit may be lost if the law be struck down for lack of validity . For, otherwise there will be no end of parties.
4. Before proceeding further , we pause here and examine the principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Syntron Limited v. Huma Ijaz and others" (2014 SCMR 531) referred by applicants' counsel . In that case manufacturing and marketing of Woven Poly Proplene ("WPP") bags was questioned through a constitutional petition in the nature of public interest litigation. In that petition M/s Syntron Limited filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be joined as one of the respondents as according to them, decision of the petition was likely to affect their interest as they were one of the major suppl iers of WPP bags to one of the respondents of the petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan taking into consideration the above said facts allowed M/s Syntron Limited to be joined as respondent in the proceedings on the ground that in case the writ petition was granted, in the terms of the prayer made therein, the interest of M/s Syntron was likely to be prejudiced. The facts of the said precedent case are distinguishable and thus principle settled therein cannot be applied to the applications on hands. The constitutional petition (i.e. W.P. No.196881 of 2018) before us questions the validity or existence of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and as such the makers of that law are necessary party. It is true that the decision of the Court on the constitutional petition is likely to affect everyone in whose case a similar point of law arises but this does not give the applicant in C.M. No.7 of 2018 a right to intervene in the proceedings of the main case before us merely because it is likely to affect him in some future proceedings. Similarly, the applicants of C.M. No.8 & 9 of 2018 cannot be allowed to join the proceedings for rendering assistance, in public interest, to determine the question of law raised before us. Thus, the prayer made in the applications cannot be acceded to.
5. Now we examine as to whether the applicants may be joined in the proceedings by treating them as "proper party". Needless to observe here that proper party is a party whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the proceedings. The term questions involved' includes all matters, material to a proper decision of the case but the object of making such persons/ parties is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan" (PLD 1975 S.C.463) has held that person must, therefore, be a person whose interest is likely to be affected even though no relief is claimed against him. This does not, therefore, extend to persons who have no interest which is likely to be affected by the proceedings, nor does it embrace persons only generally interested in common with others nor can persons be added as party so as to set up a new cause of action which does not concern original parties. From the averments made in the applications it transpires that the applicants intend to appear in the main case so as to assist the Court for proper adjudication of the question of law raised by the writ petitioner. We are afraid that on the basis of such averments a person cannot be held proper party nor can be allowed to join proceedings as respondents.
6. In view of above, these applications are dismissed.