Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    1994 CLC 247

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    1) The plaintiffs and defendants were joint co-owners of a single property, with each having an undivided share. 2) The plaintiffs filed suit seeking partition of the jointly owned property. All plaintiffs and defendants were necessary parties as co-owners. 3) Joining all co-owners in a single suit would not result in multifariousness, as the underlying object of Order 1 Rules 2-6 CPC is to avoid multifariousness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1994 CLC 247

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    88 views25 pages
    1) The plaintiffs and defendants were joint co-owners of a single property, with each having an undivided share. 2) The plaintiffs filed suit seeking partition of the jointly owned property. All plaintiffs and defendants were necessary parties as co-owners. 3) Joining all co-owners in a single suit would not result in multifariousness, as the underlying object of Order 1 Rules 2-6 CPC is to avoid multifariousness.

    Original Description:

    Case Laws Judgements of High Court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The plaintiffs and defendants were joint co-owners of a single property, with each having an undivided share. 2) The plaintiffs filed suit seeking partition of the jointly owned property. All plaintiffs and defendants were necessary parties as co-owners. 3) Joining all co-owners in a single suit would not result in multifariousness, as the underlying object of Order 1 Rules 2-6 CPC is to avoid multifariousness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    88 views25 pages

    1994 CLC 247

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    1) The plaintiffs and defendants were joint co-owners of a single property, with each having an undivided share. 2) The plaintiffs filed suit seeking partition of the jointly owned property. All plaintiffs and defendants were necessary parties as co-owners. 3) Joining all co-owners in a single suit would not result in multifariousness, as the underlying object of Order 1 Rules 2-6 CPC is to avoid multifariousness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 25

    [Vol. XVI 1994] Moinuddin Paracha v.

    Sirajuddin Paracha 247


    (Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J)
    for leave to 1994 C L C 247
    lys after the
    tion for the [Karachi]
    Before Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J
    led since the MOINUDDIN PARACHA and 5 others—Plaintiffs
    the plaintiff versus
    a to apply to
    pplication is SIRAJUDDIN PARACHA and 22 others—Respondents
    1
    ■S
    Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 679 and 1940 of 1992 in Suit No 131 of
    1992, decided on 18th April, 1993.
    rity and the
    -
    o appear and (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—
    ttdants has to
    le defendants ,Rr- 2 t0 6—Object of O. I, Rr. 2 to 6, C.P.C.-Avoicfance of
    submits that mmtifanousness in suit—Parties were joint co-owners of property in question,
    refers to the which was one and single entity—Each one of such co-sharers had share'm
    7 and 8 have each millimeter of such property—Fact that co-owners had acquired undivided
    s (Annexures shares in different modes i.e. inheritance, gift and purchase would be
    ;.4, 7 and 8 to immaterial—Plaintiffs in their suit were seeking partition of property jointly
    4,7 and 8. By owned by them with defendants—AH the plaintiffs and so also aH the
    y lodged their defendants being co-owners of property in question, all of them were necessary
    ae as security, .parties—M of them having been joined in one suit s^e would not suffer
    nnection with from multifariousness—Object of provisions as contained in O. I. Rr. 2, 3, 4, 5,
    and 6, Civil Procedure Code. » » » >
    Arfm submits
    irantee by the The underlying object of the provisions as contained under Order I,
    lint that these Rdes 2 and 3-is to avoid multifariousness. In the present case it could not be
    7 and 8 are, said that common questions of law or facts had not arisen.inter se the plaintiffs
    sdged by them ^d the defendants. It also could not be said that* no nexus or common ImV
    lount. In the fx^ted in respect of the shares acquired in different modes by the plaintiffs,
    2,5,9 and 10 individually or coHectively. On the contrary the plaintiffs had to be joined
    bove bank rate together for seeking their relief- and so also the defendants joined together for
    date of the suit the said purpose. All the plaintiffs and so also all the defendants were co-
    IS of.the recent owners of the property and as such aU of them were necessary parties. If any of
    rdinance, 1979, them was dropped, the suit would be rendered bad for non-joinder of
    accordingly. necessary party.
    ayer is that the.
    The Court had to assess and determine the legality of each of the
    inexure P/27 to
    ransfer deeds as acquisitions pleaded by the plaintiffs and possibility could not be ruled out that
    5 sale of these each of the defendants might raise different pleas with regard to separate
    daily liable, the acquisition by the plaintiffs but merely for such reason, the suit could not be
    ioned above be said to be multifarious. Provisions of Order I, Rule 4, C.P.C. which specifically
    1 hereinabove. provide that judgment may be given, without any amendment, for such one or
    more of the plaintiffs as may be found to be entitled to relief, for such relief as
    der accordingly. he or they may be entitled to against such one or more of the defendants as
    may be found liable according to their respective liabilities.

    You might also like