Impleading necessary party in a suit..

Citation Name : 2002 PLD 615 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : GHULAM AHMAD CHAUDHRY

Side Opponent : AKBAR HUSSAIN

—-O. I, R.10 & O.XLI & Rr.23, 27—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Impleading of necessary party–-Additional evidence, recording of —Remand of case to Trial Court for decision afresh—jurisdiction of High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction —Plaintiff asserted to be the owner of the suit property and in his absence the property was transferred in the name of the vendor claiming to be the son of the plaintiff-defendant purchased the property from the vendor and the same was transferred in the name of the defendant—Plaintiff denied the vendor as his son and filed suit for cancellation of document and recovery’of possession—Vendor was neither impleaded in the suit nor his statement was recorded as witness–Trial Court dismissed the suit but High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction allowed the appeal, impleaded the vendor as a party and remanded the case to the Trial Court and Suo motu directed the Trial .Court to record additional evidence—Contention of the defendant was that the High Court should have decided the appeal on the basis of evidence available on record—Validity-–Judicial discretion exercised by the High Court as Appellate Court , in the present case, was neither unwarranted nor unjustified when valuable proprietary rights of the plaintiff (who was out of country for a long period) were extinguished without his consent and permission, it was a fit case for exercise of Suo motu jurisdiction by the High Court —High Court by remanding the suit did not act arbitrarily or without jurisdiction — Supreme Court repelled the contention of the defendant and declined to set aside judgment and remand of case for decision afresh—Appeal was disposed of accordingly