Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAID ALAM AND Another VS Respondent: RAJA SOHRAB KHAN AND 8 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Waheeduddin Ahmad, Sajjad Ahmad Jan Title: SAID ALAM AND Another vs RAJA SOHRAB KHAN AND 8 Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 37 of 1970 Civil Revision No.
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 1970 SCMR 639 Result: Leave refused Judgment JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Lahore) made in revisional jurisdiction, whereby in reversal of the order of the trial Court, respondents 2 to 8 were permitted to be transposed as co-plaintiffs with respondent No. 1 (Raja Sohrab Khan) from their original status in the suit as pro forma defendants. The issue arose in a suit brought by respondent No. 1 to contest the sale made by his father Raja Allah Dad Khan to one, Dewan Ali, as being without lawful necessity and thus invalid and ineffective against his reversionary rights under the customary law. The petitioner (Said Alam) had successfully pre-empted that sale and stepped into the shoes of the vendee. As observed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in his impugned order, the plaintiff- respondent suit was in essence of a representative character which enured to the benefit of all the reversioners. The plaintiff had at first alleged that the respondents 2 to 8 had relinquished their claim but on the latter's plea that they had not done so, he did not object to their transposition as co-plaintiffs. The correct legal course to adopt in such a situation was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur v. Rajeswar Prasad Bhagat etc. (AIR1931PC162), wherein it was observed that "course of adding pro forma defendants as co- plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings". This dictum with which we respectfully agree, is fully attracted to the facts of this case.