ORDER MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR, J.-- Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Waheed Akhtar petitioner/defendant has challenged the orders dated 24.1.2002 and 14.'6.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge and leaned Addl. District Judge, at Gojra, respectively hereby on basis of consistent view, Municipal Committee Gojra has been impleaded as defendant in the suit for declaration filed by Abid Pervaiz etc. Respondents/plaintiffs.
2. The dispute in-between the parties arose over the use of a street (blind alley) measuring 131' and 10", situated in Aziz Colony, Mehdi Mohalla, Gojra, District T.T. Singh. The contention of respondents/plaintiffs named Abid Pervaiz and Amjad Zia was that they have right of easement over its use air and light as being a public street and it was made PACCA by Municipal Committee Gojra so it was prayed that the defendant be restrained to interfere into their right of easement and also to demolish the same whereas the contention of the petitioner/defendant was that this passage is private and in his on use. During the pendency of the suit the respondents/plaintiffs moved an application to amend the plaint by impleading Municipal Committee Gojra as defendant No. 2 mainly with this contention that the street in question is a public street and it is in their use for the last twenty-five years without any interference. This application was opposed by the-petitioner/defendant by filing the written reply with the same contentions as mentioned above.
After hearing the parties the Learned Civil Judge arrived to this conclusion that for just decision of the case the impleading of Municipal Committee, Gojra, is necessary so he directed to amend the plaint after impleading the Municipal Committee as defendant in the suit vide his order dated 24.1.2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant filed a Civil Revision No. 814- A/2002 which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Gojra vide his order dated 14.6.2002 with this observation that by impleading the Municipal Committee, Gojra as a party the contention of Municipal Committee Gojra will also come on the record which will be helpful to resolve the controversy. Now being aggrieved from the orders as mentioned above, the petitioner/defendant has come-up with this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone' through the copies of the relevant record placed before me.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant mainly argued that there is sufficient material on the record which shows that Municipal Committee Gojra has no connection with. The disputed strip of land, therefore, Municipal Committee is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit. He argued that Order-I, Rule 3 of CPC deals with the joinder of the defendants which reflects on this principle that a person or persons may be impleaded as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly or severally or in the alternative, where, if separate suits were brought against such persons any common question of law or fact would arise, therefore, when Municipal Committee, Gojra has no concern with the disputed strip of land and no relief has been claimed against the Municipal Committee, the Municipal Committee, Gojra is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit and being so the orders passed by the Courts below being illegal are liable to be set aside, Which have been opposed by the Learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that the place in dispute is being used as a-public street whereon Municipal Committee, Gojra has spent money for its improvement through the contractors, therefore, Municipal Committee, Gojra is a necessary party for the just decision of the case.
5. The point for determination is quite simple because it is to be assessed as to who is necessary and proper party either as plaintiff or as a defendant. Order I, Rule 3, CPC deals with the joining of the person or persons as defendant or defendants. The perusal of Rule 3 would reveal that basically the defendant is that person against whom any relief is claimed but its perusal would also show that the object of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of the suits and since it is not so exhaustive, therefore, some assistance is sought from the other rules of this Order particularly Rule 10, because basically the Court has to see as to which is the proper and necessary party for the just adjudication of the matter and that this lacuna can be fulfilled either upon an application moved by any part or without the application on either sides, consequently, the plaintiff may be directed to implead the person concerned as a party in the suit. So when it is to be determined that any person is a party or not, the provisions of Order I, Rule 3 of CPC shall be read alongwith the provisions of Order -I, Rule 10, C PC and not exclusively the provisions of Order I, Rule 3 of CPC as argued by the Learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Now here in the instant case the contention of the respondent/plaintiff was that the street in question was constructed by the Municipal Committee, Gojra which is in the use of the parties.
Municipal Committee, Gojra may not be interested in the subject because some time it happens that with the consent of the parties a private place is made as a road by having soaling over there or a PACCA road at the spot but if a specific passage is to be shown as a public street the record must speak that it was declared as a PACCA street in accordance with rules otherwise mere installation of bricks at the spot would not make the private passage as a public street, meaning thereby, if Municipal Committee, Gojra is impleaded as a defendant in the suit this would negate the multiplicity of the suit and that if the Municipal Committee, Gojra fails to establish its ownership over the passage in dispute there would be no harm to the petitioner/defendant. Therefore from all angles it appears that the orders passed by the Learned Trial Court are in accordance with law and call for no interference.
7. Consequently, this writ petition being without merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.