' This is a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeking a declaration that the impugned orders of respondents Nos.9 and 10 for impleading respondents Nos.7 and 8 as party to a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents Nos.1 to 6 are without lawful authority and that the same be ordered to be struck down.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents Nos.1 to 6 on the averments that he is lease holder of site of Plot No,395 of Block B/1 in Muhammad Ali Jauhar Town Scheme of the Lahore Development Authority and the said plot is allocated for the installation of a Petrol Pump and that it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner that respondent No,5 has applied to the Lahore Development Authority for conversion of residential plots Nos.251, 252 and 252-A in Block E of the said Scheme for commercialization and to allow him the installation of Shell Petrol Pump. It was also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has a vested right to challenge the commercialization of the plots and installation of petrol pump and that respondents Nos.1 to 4 have no authority to convert residential plots into commercial use and to allow respondent No,5 to instal a petrol pump.
3. In the suit, respondents Nos.7 and 8 moved an application under Order I, rule 10 read with section 151, C.P.C. For impleading them as parties to the suit on the grounds that they are owners of the plots against which the petitioner has filed the suit and they are proper and necessary parties.
4. The said application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff and submitted his reply resisting the application on the ground that in the absence of the applicants, an effective decree can be passed.
5. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 14-7-1999 allowed the application. Against that order, a revision petition was moved before the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed.
6. Now the petitioner has come before this Court and has submitted that no material was available on the record to show that the applicants/respondents Nos.7 and 8 were necessary or proper party and that the matter was between the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 6 and the same could be completely adjudicated without impleading respondents Nos.7 and 8 as party to the suit.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 6 have taken the stand that the very cause is no more available to the petitioner as the Shell Pakistan Limited has withdrawn its request for granting permission to install a petrol pump on the land belonging to respondents Nos.7 and 8, the very writ petition has become infructuous and that without conceding, if still the matter is considered alive, respondents Nos.7 and 8, being the owners of the site on which the petrol pump is to be installed, they are going to be adversely affected in case of refusal, they are necessary parties to the suit and that no illegality has been committed by both the Courts below nor their orders are without lawful authority.
8. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides. The relevant law on the point is contained in Order I, rule 10(2), C.P.C. Which reads as under: "Court may strike out or add parties.
(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
9. The language of the above sub-rule makes it clear that its object is to avoid the necessity of separate actions and to completely and effectually dispose of all the questions involved in the suit.
The rule vests a judicial discretion in the Court to add parties at any stage after the presentation of the plaint. It also shows that for the purposes of this rule, the parties can either be classified as a necessary party or a proper party. The question as to who is a necessary party? The answer is that a person who ought to have been joined and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed.
It is a person in the absence of whom a suit cannot proceed. The question who is a proper party?
The answer is that a person whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicates upon and settle all points involved in the suit. A person against whom no relief is asked for is not a necessary party but may be a proper party. Another difference between the effect of non-impleadment of a necessary or a proper party is that a suit in which a necessary party is not impleaded, is bad while a suit in which a proper party is not impleaded, is not bad.
10. In the present case, there is no cavil with the proposition that the grant of permission to instal a petrol pump or to convert a residential plot into a commercial plot is a matter between a person who seeks permission for installation of petrol pump or a person whose plot is to be allowed to be converted from residential to commercial but as ultimately respondents Nos.7 and 8 are the persons who are going to be adversely affected by the action sought by the petitioner and one way or the other, there would be multiplicity of litigation, they are the persons whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all points involved in the suit.
Thus, the orders passed by both the Courts below are perfectly legal and they were empowered under Order I, rule 10(2), C.P.C. To pass such orders. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs.