This order will dispose of two revision petitions i. e. No. 181 of 1971 and No. 182 of 1971 as the point involved in both is the same. Messrs Jans Caterers had obtained on 29-4-1969 a contract for catering in the dining car of certain trains run by the Pakistan Western Railway. The contract was for three years. But on 25-1-1971 they received a notice ter--minating their contract on the expiry of ten days of the notice, and directing them to hand over charge to the new contractors after the notice period. The petitioners thereupon brought two suits both against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Pakistan Western Railway. The new contractors applied under Order 1, rule 10, C. P. C. For being impleaded as defendants is the respective suits. The learned trial Judge held that as a decree would be passed effectually in the suits, the new contractors would not be a necessary party but that they nevertheless were proper party, inasmuch as they were interested in the result of the suits and as they would be effected adversely if the suits were decreed. He, therefore, allowed the application by his order dated 25-2-1971 which is impugned in the present revision petitions.
The matter was hotly contested by the counsel of both the sides. Kh. A. Waheed, Advocate, for the petitioners cited the rulings reported in PLD 1968 Lah. 1076, PLD 1951 Sind 32, AIR 1936 Mad. 449, AIR 1935 Sind 194, AIR 1934 Nag. 228, PLD 1965 Kar. 633 and 1968 Law Notes Kar.
79. Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate, for the new contractors, on the other hand, relied on the reported decisions in AIR 1934 Lah. 328, PLD 1955 Lab. 644 and PLD 1960 Azad J & K 70. Both sides also referred to a few rulings of Indian Courts of the post-Partition period. Mr. Syed Ali Shah, Advocate who appeared for the Government of Pakistan, supported the arguments of Mr. Saeed Akhtar.
3. In their suit the petitioners had sought a declaration to the following effect:- That the notice dated 25-1-71 served on the plaintiff by the defendant and the action of the defendant in cancelling or threatening to cancel the contract is illegal, ultra vires unlawful, void, mala fide and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff is entitled to the enjoyment of the catering rights till 28-4-1972 without any interference from the defendant with a consequential relief restraining the defendant from in any manner interference in the enjoyment and exercise of the catering contract till the expiry of three years i. e., till 28-4-1972."
The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the new contractors were not necessary party inasmuch as the decree if passed against the defendant Government of Pakistan, could be effectually enforced against that defendant alone. No exception to this view has been taken before me.
4. The petitioner's contention however, is that the new contractors are not a proper party either, because no point of fact or law involving the new contractors would arise in the suit which was based entirely on the contract between the peti--tioners and the railway. The point urged on behalf of the new contractors was that the contract between the petitioners and the railway stood terminated on the expiry of ten days of the notice dated 25-1-1971, that, therefore, they were the virtual contractors as from 5-2-1971, that they should have been operating the contract from that date but for the inter--vention of the trial Court which on 4-2-1971 ordered the maintenance of status quo and that they would thus be directly affected by the result of the suit and were as such a proper party who ought to be impleaded.
5. Most of the rulings cited by the parties, mention of which has been made in Para. 2 ante, describe generally the law under order I, rule 10, C. P. C. And a detailed discussion of the same is not necessary.
6. A proper party is one whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. A proper party could mean a party who is interested in the result of the suit and who may have a right to seek assistance of the Court in coming to a decision on the point in issue. It is not necessary that any relief should be asked against him, the object of adding him being to avoid a needless multiplicity of suits, and to protect his interest of a party already on record. A party who is only indirectly or remotely interested is not a proper party. Similarly, a person claiming under a title quite dis--tinct from that under which any of the parties to the suit claim, is not a proper party. In a suit for specific performance, the general rule is that a stranger to the contract cannot be sued upon it. Only the parties to the contract are necessary and sufficient parties.
7. From the nature of the relief sought in the present suits, it is clear that the petitioners are seeking a specific performance of their contract with the Railway, to which contract the new contractors are not a party. The new contractors' claim if any, in the event of the suit being decreed, would be only against' the Railway and not against the petitioners. It was held in Mukhi Seramdas Jethanand and others v. Tikamal Mulchand and another (AIR 1935 Sind 194) that questions "involved in the suit" under Order 1, rule 10, refer only to questions between parties to the suit and to questions between plaintiffs and defendants and not to question which may arise between co-plaintiffs or between co-defendants inter se. The new contractors whose claim if at all would be against the defendant Railway, are on the basis of this principle, not a proper party. In Muhammad Ishaque's case (P L .D 1955 Lah. 644) upon which reliance was placed by Mr. Saeed Akhtar, the learned counsel for the new contractors, A, having entered into an agreement with B for the sale of a house began evading to execute the deed and instead her brother C in collusion with her, executed a sale deed in favour of D. In a suit instituted by for specific performance of contract against A, C and D were held to be proper parties entitled to be joined in the suit in spite of the objection raised by A.
The ratio decidendi was that the two sales had been series of acts or transactions joining together to give B a right of suit. The principle of this cited authority cannot however, be involved here because the two contracts in the matter before me cannot be said to be series of acts or transactions." The petitioner's contract with the Railway was an independent transaction, it had been implemented and was subsisting right from 29-4-1969. The cause of action had arisen because of its premature termination by one of the contracting parties, and not because of the contract with the new contractors. The contract if any, between the Railway and the new contractors is quite distinct and apart front the peti--tioners' contract. In the circumstances the new contractors could not be impleaded as a party particularly in the face of objection by the petitioners. It was held in Devendra Kurnar and others v. Mst. Batasibai and others (AIR 1954 Nag.
228), that where a full and final adjudication is possible between the existing parties of all questions involved in the suit, the Court has no jurisdiction to and parties unless, of course, every body consents to the addition.
The impugned order adding the new contractors as defen--dants is therefore, without jurisdiction and needs to be set aside in the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.
8. In the result, the revision petitions are accepted the impugned order in both the suits whereby the new contractors had been impleaded as defendants, is set aside, and the new contractors' application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. Are dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.