ORDER    SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.

Suit No. 1862  of 2009

Date                            Order with signature of Judge.

 

29.09.2010.

            Mrs. Sofia Saeed, Advocate for the Plaintiff.

            None present for the Defendant

                                                ******

1.         This is an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC for striking of the name of Defendant No.9 from the array of defendants on the ground that plot is owned by plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.9 has lost interest in the aforesaid plot and does not claim any right therefore said defendant is neither necessary nor proper party in the suit.  Mrs. Sofia Saeed has no objection if the name of Defendant No.9 is struck of from the array of defendants. The application  is allowed. The name of defendant No.9 is deleted from the array of the defendants.

 

2.         Deferred at the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

 

3.         There is no need to grant any exemption  in suit. Application disposed off.

 

4.         This is an application under order 18 rule 18 pending since 2009 without any counter affidavit from any side. Plaintiff has prayed that Nazir may be appointed as Commissioner to inspect the premises and submit his report to this court.  Mr. Anwar Ali, Assistant Registrar D-II is appointed Commissioner to inspect the plot in question and submit his report regarding the factum of possession. Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/= which shall be paid by the plaintiff. Application is disposed off in the above terms.

 

5.         In this application plaintiff has prayed for necessary amendments in the plaint and submitted that due to oversight, the agreement to sell dated 20.7.1998 executed by Haji Nizamuddin and sons in favour of plaintiffs could not be placed on record. Since the defendant No.9 has already accepted the factum of sale in its application and not at issue with the plaintiff and its name is already struck off on its application moved under order 1 rule 10 CPC, hence, the amendment is necessary to incorporate the details of transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendant No.9. The propose amendment in my view will not change the complexion of suit in any manner. The application is allowed. The plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint within two weeks time. However,  it is clarified that in the amended plaint, the plaintiff will mention M/s.H.Nizamuddin & Sons Pvt. Ltd. instead of defendant No.9.

    

                      

                                                                                                                        JUDGE