1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Intervenor Perfect Company through its General Manager Bhamarlal has moved this application (MA 318/92) for being joined as a party, in this Constitution Petition filed by M/s. Paragon Company against the Government of Sindh and the Union Council Bholari.
2. ' In his Constitution Petition petitioner M/s. Paragon Company claimed that it was the highest bidder in an auction held on 21-6-1992 for collection of octroi on behalf of Union Council, Bholari for the period 12-8-1992 to 11-8-1993. Grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of auction having taken place on 21-6-1992 the respondent No,1 had ordered for reauction of the contract for collection of octroi.
3. ' Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi learned counsel for the intervenor criticised the manner in which the Constitution petition was filed by the petitioner without filing copy of the impugned order and without mentioning even date of the impugned order. He was of the view that there was no urgency for filing the Constitution petition. Mr. Abbasi argued that although as per the press reports the auction was to be held on 21-6-1992 but in fact no auction had taken place and if at all the auction had taken that was after office hours and in an otak. It was further argued that the intervenor was sitting contractor for the last four years and he had a right to take part in the auction for grant of octroi contract for 1992-93. Learned counsel for the intervenor relied on the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and argued that joining of the intervenor as a party was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions which arise in the Constitution petition. In this respect learned counsel cited the cases of Allah Rakhio v.
4. Khushmir Khan and 4 others (1986 CLC 1828) and Mrs. S.M. Hanif v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others (PLD 1961 Lah. 659).
5. ' Mr. Sharaf Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the application vehemently and contended that the respondent No,1 had passed an order on 9-7-1992 for reauction of the octroi contract for Union Council 1 Bholari for the year 1992-93 on 20-7-1992 at 10-00 a.m. in office of Local Government Department at Karachi. It was added that initially the auction was to take place on 8- 6-1992 but then next date for auction was fixed to be 16-6-1992 and ultimately the auction took place on 21-6-1992 and that the intervenor never went to participate in the auction on any of the said dates. It was further argued that application of the intervenor was motivated to cause delay and to cause prejudice and its purpose was to frustrate the contract in favour of the petitioner.
6. Lastly it was argued that since Government of Sindh was party to the main petition and it was order of the Government of Sindh which was challenged, hence joining of intervenor as a party was not necessary. In support reliance was placed on the case of M/s. Zahid Hussain Shah v. Province of Sindh and another (C.P. No,D-702 of 1991) = 1992 CLC 2519.
7. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned A.A.-G. did not oppose application of the intervenor for being joined as a party.
8. ' Mr. Jhamat Jethanand learned counsel for the respondent No,2 opposed the application. Learned counsel challenged competency of Bhamarlal to file the application on behalf of the intervenor and to swear affidavit on his behalf, without possessing any power of attorney or authority to do the same. The next leg of argument by Mr. Jhamat was, that the impugned order was passed by the Government of Sindh and its legality and competency wa,s challenged by the petitioner and in the circumstances a private party has no locus standi to become party and oppose or support the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 was of the view that the questions arising between the petitioner and respondents can be adjudicated upon and settled effectually and completely without presence of the intervenor. It was further argued that impleading of the intervenor would raise certain factual issues which cannot be determined in a Constitution petition.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 convincingly argued that the intervenor had neither supported case of the respondents nor he had supported case of the petitioner but he had raised a new plea that no auction had at all taken place -- a stand which was not taken even by the respondents. Lastly it was argued that joining of the intervenor as a party would open Pandora's box.
10. There is no cavil with the view that a party can be joined during pendency of Constitution petition only when presence of such party before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the case of Allah Rakhio v. Khushmir Khan and others (1986 CLC 1828) cited on behalf of the intervenor, the view taken was that the terms "questions involved" appearing in Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., would include all matters and material necessary to proper decision of case and that the object of impleading a person as a party would be to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and that a proper party would be a person whose interest was likely to be affected even though no relief was claimed against such person. In the case of Mrs. S.M.
11. ' Hanif v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others (PLD 1961 Lah. 659) the view taken was that section 141 of C.P.C. is intended to extend the provisions of the Code only to original matters in the nature of suits which may be pending before any Civil Court and that there was no authority- for extending the provisions of section 141 read with Order 9, Rule 9 to an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C.
12. This observation does not further case of the intervenor beyond the fact that a Court has power under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. at any stage of the suit to substitute or add a plaintiff or to join any party who is necessary or proper.
13. ' There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 that the real contest in the Constitution petition is about the legality and competency of the order, dated 9-7-1992 by which reauction of octroi contract for 1992-93 has been ordered. For deciding the present Constitution petition, the legality and competency of the impugned order is to be seen and for determining the point at issue effectually and completely, joining of the intervenor is not necessary.
14. It was not case of the intervenor if the impugned order was passed at his instance. In a similar case of M/s. Zahid Hussain Shah v. Province of Sindh and another (C.P. No,D-702/91) = 1992 CLC 2519 a learned Division Bench of this Court declined joining of a third party, when the contest was between Union Council, Landhi and the party claiming to be bidder in the auction. As in the cited case, so in the instant case, the intervenor did not participate in the auction and he did not give any bid. In the circumstances the intervenor is not entitled to be joined as a party. Consequently we dismiss this application.