Order Sheet

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

 

Suit No. 296 of 2006

 

Date

              Order with signature of Judge

 

Syed Ali Ahmed Tariq, advocate for the plaintiff.

 

Mr. Muhammad Shahid Qadeer Soharwardy, advocate for the intervener.

 

 

Date of hearing  :  14.10.2015.

 

 

ORDER ON C.M.A. No. 1217 of 2013

 

 

NADEEM AKHTAR, J. – This application has been filed by the intervener Saeed Ahmed under Order I Rule 10 CPC praying that he may be allowed to join this Suit as a defendant.

 

2.         This Suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of money on account of damages has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of Flat / Unit No.A-605/3, situated on the 6th floor of Block No.3, in the project known as ‘Al-Rauf Royal City’, constructed on Plot No.NC118, Block 19, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Scheme No.36, Karachi (‘the suit property’). The plaintiff has alleged that despite receiving sale consideration of the suit property, defendant No.1 / builder has failed to hand over its physical possession to him or to transfer its title in his favour.

 

3.         It is the case of the intervener that the suit property was purchased by him for valuable consideration vide sale agreement dated 25.01.2012 from the original allottee Muhammad Shiraz Siddiqui through his attorney Muhammad Imranullah Kazi. He has claimed that the physical possession of the suit property was handed over to him and he is still enjoying the same. In support of his assertions, he has filed copies of various documents and has also relied upon the Commissioner’s report dated 29.04.2013. The said Commissioner was appointed by this Court in this Suit vide order dated 22.04.2013 to inspect the suit property in order to ascertain as to who is in possession thereof. The Commissioner’s said report is available on record wherein he has clearly stated that at the time of inspection the intervener was present at the suit property along with his wife, two daughters and one son, whose names, signatures and identity card numbers were recorded by him.

 

4.         On 22.04.2013 while appointing the Commissioner, it was further ordered by this Court that the person found in possession of the suit property will not be dispossessed therefrom till the next date of hearing. Record shows that the said order is still in the field, which means that the intervener is still in possession of the suit property.

 

5.         Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed this application by reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed in reply thereto by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 / builder has also filed counter affidavit to this application, but no one is present on his behalf to oppose the application.

 

6.         Since the intervener is claiming to have purchased the suit property for valuable consideration and is also in possession thereof as per the Commissioner’s report, he is a necessary party to this Suit. In my humble opinion, the issues involved in the instant Suit cannot be decided effectually and completely in his absence. It will be open for the parties at the time of trial to prove their case on the strength of the evidence led by them.

 

7.         Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 14.10.2015 whereby this application was allowed as prayed and the plaintiff was directed to file the amended title within seven (07) days.

 

 

 

 

 

    __________________

               J U D G E