Necessary Party

  1. Necessary party — No order without hearing Government functionary can be passed — If a necessary party is absent there can be no adjudication. Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian 1992 SCR 214 (D & E)
  2. Persons impleaded as proforma-defendant — Decree passed in favour of plaintiff as well as in favour of his brothers proforma-defendant — Decree being indivisible and operative commonly in favour of all the brothers — Such proforma-defendants necessary party. Zenit Begum & others v. Fazal Dad & others 1993 SCR 245 (A)
  3. Omission to implead — Delay — Condonation of delay — Application for condonation moved after 3 years after filing the concise statement – Held a clear case of willful neglect and attitude on the part of the appellant — Application for condonation of delay rejected. Zenit Begum & others v. Fazal Dad & others 1993 SCR 245 (B)
  4. Suit for ‘Arakdari’ Rights — sanction of mutation of Khalsa land — Government is a necessary party. Muhammad Sharif  v. Azad Govt. and others 1994 SCR 251 (D)
  5. The allottees were held to be necessary parties since the allottees had become beneficiaries after the allotments in their favour they should have been impleaded as party — Allotment Committee on whose recommendations the notification dated 24.04.1994 was issued had full powers of the allotment in view of the notification dated 15.02.1975 in view of the dictum laid down in Akram Shah’s case the writ petition was not properly constituted as only the Deputy Commissioner who was the Chairman of the Allotment Committee, was impleaded but the other members of the Committee were not arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions it was not properly constituted due to non-impleadment of the allottees concerned and the members of the Allotment Committee — No effective writ could be issued in absence of the said parties. AJ&K Govt. v. Gohar Rehman and others 1996 SCR 112 (B) PLD 1985 SC (AJK) 102, Syed M. Akram Shah Vs. Chairman Allotment Committee (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995 decided on 24.7.1995), PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38, 1980 PSC 1014, 1992 SCR 214, PLD 1982 SC (AJK) 45, 1994 SCR 19, and Raja M. Ashraf Kayani Vs. Azad Govt. of the State J&K(Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995 decided on 17.2.1996) relied.
  6. A person not arrayed as party in the proceedings is not bound by an order passed in such proceedings. AJK Government & others  v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 1996 SCR 305 (A)
  7. Since the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court who determined the seniority of the parties not impleaded as respondents no effective order could be passed by the Service Tribunal or by this Court. Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. AJK Govt. and 4 others 1997 SCR 389 (F)
  8. Other allottees being necessary parties were to be impleaded in the writ petition either as petitioners or proforma-respondents — On this score the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. Miskeen Shah v. Custodian and 4 others 2000 SCR 153 (C)
  9. Shrine itself has to pay nothing — Shrine was not a necessary party entailing the dismissal of the suit — A party is always necessary in the event if an effective decree could not have been executed in absence of that party. M. Sabir and 7 others v. Sian Maqbool Hussain 2000 SCR 174 (B)
  10. Appellant was necessary party and in his absence no effective order could be passed — Order of promotion of appellant remains un-effected by the judgment of Service Tribunal because it was not binding on him since he was not a party. Manzoor Ahmad  v. M. Sabbir  2000 SCR 500 (B)
  11. Co-sharers not impleaded as a party — Held: Co-sharers were necessary party, without them suit could not have been decreed. Boota and another v. M. Sadiq and 4 others 2000 SCR 331 (E)
  12. In view of the stand taken by the appellants in their written statement and the fact that a definite finding was recorded by the High Court against Vice Chancellor, he was a necessary party to be arrayed as such in the writ petition — It is a celebrated principle of law that an adverse finding cannot be recorded against a person at his back — It is settled principle of law that where an effective order or decree could not be passed in absence of a particular party that party is a necessary party. Vice Chancellor and 3 others v.  Muhammad Shahzad Khalid 2000 SCR 575 (A)
  13. Submission that the Judge in the High Court and others are necessary parties, has no substance — This Court is hearing appeal against the order of dismissal of writ petition and not an original writ petition — Appellant challenged the judgment of High Court without attributing any mala fide to the Judge — If contention is accepted, then a Judge in the High Court who decides a writ petition or any other cause should be a necessary party in case of appeal to this Court. Andleeb Sahir Butt  v. Naveed Hussain and 2 others 2000 SCR 57 (D)
  14. Chairman of the P.D.A. was impleaded as respondent who is not constructing plazas, but it is the Authority which is doing so — The Authority is not impleaded as a respondent for which reason no writ can be issued — The appeal suffered from fatal defect it shall stand dismissed. Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2001 SCR 84 (A)
  15. Appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk after termination of service of the respondent but he was not impleaded as a party either in departmental appeal or before the Service Tribunal — Held: The appeal without impleading appellant, herein, was not properly constituted and the same entailed dismissal on this sole ground. Muzaffar H. Khan vs. R. Hashmat Ali Khan 2002 SCR 393 (B)
  16. A judicial order determining the liabilities and rights of the parties cannot be passed at the back of a party because that will violate the universally recognised principle of audi alteram partem — The principle of natural justice is presumed to be part of every statute unless and until it is specifically excluded through a provision in the relevant statute — Selection Committee was a necessary party — No order could be passed against it without providing an opportunity of hearing — C.P.C. is applicable in proceedings before the Service Tribunal therefore without impleading necessary party — The appeal before the Service Tribunal was not maintainable. Khalil Ahmed Aqeel  v. Member Board of Revenue and 3 others 2002 SCR 128 (A)
  17. It is a settled law that the authority which has passed the order is a necessary party — Writ petition not competent in the circumstances when necessary party is not arrayed as a party. M. Naseem Khan v. M. Akbar Khan and 7 others 2003 SCR 142 (A)
  18. Selection Committee was blamed that it wrongly received the application of private respondent — It was also blamed for wrongly allowing the respondent to participate in test and interview and illegally recommending her for appointment — Thus, the Selection Committee was a necessary party — Without impleading it as answering respondent to defend its action no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Shahista Mumtaz v. Sec. Education and others 2003 SCR 446 (D)
  19. The allotment Committee was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. M. Resham Khan & others v. M. Iqbal Khan 2003 SCR 74 (C)
  20. The Divisional Director Education who made the appointment of appellant was a necessary party and without his impleadment as one of the respondents, writ could not have been issued. Muhammad Shafi Nazami  v. Abdul Shakoor and 2 others 2003 SCR 12 (A)
  21. If any functionary or a person is to be condemned by observing that he had no jurisdictional competence to pass any order — Same cannot be done without first impleading him as a party. Muhammad Ismail v. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed and 11 others 2004 SCR 16 (B)
  22. If any party has not been impleaded before the High Court, objection in this regard can be raised by the petitioner as C.P.C. is applicable in writ — The High Court can decide as to whether the Selection Committee is a necessary party or not — In case the High Court is convinced that Selection Committee must be impleaded, then proper order cab be passed. Mustafa Awan v. Khalil Ahmed Chughtai and 4 others 2004 SCR 476 (B)
  23. Necessary party — Whether Selection Board is a necessary party or not — The question cab be resolved in light of rule 8 of AJK Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1976 — Wherein it is provided that the competent authority is to be impleaded as a first respondent — The authority which has passed the final order in respect of terms & conditions of service of any civil servant is a necessary party — Held:  The Selection Board was not a necessary party. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2004 SCR 417 (C)
  24. Writ was not properly constituted — Impugned orders were passed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee — The Selection Committee was not impleaded as party — If a necessary party in whose absence no effective writ could be issued was not impleaded, the writ is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Shafqat Hayyat v. M. Shahid Ashraf & others 2005 SCR 57 (C) 1997 SCR 239, PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38, 1994 SCR 19, 1996 SCR 112, 1996 SCR 161 relied.
  25. Minister Incharge was the competent authority — He should have been impleaded in the line of respondents because he had to implement the directions of mandamus issued by the Court — He was not impleaded — On account of this formal defect the writ petition was not properly constituted.  Shafqat Hayyat    v. Muhammad Shahid Ashraf & 18 others 2005 SCR 57 (D)  PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38, 1994 SCR 19, 1996 SCR 112, 1996 SCR 161, 1997 SCR 239 relied.
  26. Non-impleadment of legal heirs of deceased — Effect of — Only the State was arrayed as respondent — Unlike civil laws the Cr. P.C. or any other criminal law for filing appeal to the Supreme Court does not provide as to who can be arrayed as party, although an appeal can be filed by an aggrieved person — A person who is interested in the result of a case and is likely to be affected by an order and remained a party before the lower Court necessarily to be arrayed as a party. Muhammad Riaz & 2 others v. The State 2006 SCR 170 (A)
  27. The Prime Minister has not rescinded the earlier order, there was no necessity to array AJ&K Government as a party — Direction was sought against the Board of Revenue which was duly arrayed as one of the respondents before the High Court. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Shezad Naseem Abbasi 2006 SCR 396 (D)
  28. 36 Selection grade Constables who have been promoted as Head Constables were to be impleaded as party but the petitioner has not arrayed them as such — Contention that these 36 Head Constables were not necessary party has no force or legal backing as the contention is not only against the law but also runs counter to different reports recorded by this Court — Negligence of such a grave nature on the part of petitioner cannot be ignored particularly his responsibility to file his grievance before Service Tribunal in time and filing of appeal without impleading the necessary party is concerned. Iftikhar Haider  v. Superintendent of Police and 9 others 2007 SCR 540 (B)
  29. Contention that only the candidates from Muzaffarabad and Bagh district were impleaded, and the candidates from other units were not impleaded, the writ petition entails dismissal — Held: This is also a legal point — Legal points of vital importance are involved the High Court wrongly dismissed the writ petition in limine. Electrical Engineer Syed Attezazul Hasan v. Azad Govt. &  15 others 2008 SCR 67 (C)
  30. In absence of necessary party a valid decree cannot be passed by the civil Court. Abdul Rasheed & 4 others v. Muhammad Younas and another 2010 SCR 102 (B)
  31. Controversy among the parties rests upon the lease sanction order issued by the Collector — Collector arrayed in writ but not arrayed as party in appeal before this Court — held: it is basic order of the Collector, the legality of which has to be judged by the Court, thus the collector is a necessary party. Saif Din Shah & 6 others v. M. Hanif Khan & 10 others 2014 SCR 816 (A)
  32. Non-impleadment — effect of — Collector not arrayed as party — held: no one can be condemned unheard.  For adjudication of controversy among parties, the Collector is a necessary party. The failure to implead Collector as party according to celebrated principles of statutory provisions as well as the enunciated principle of law will result into dismissal of the case. Saif Din Shah & 6 others v. M. Hanif Khan & 10 others 2014 SCR 816 (B) 2004 SCR 16 & 1996 SCR 161 rel.
  33. Held: the issuing authority of the notification was necessary party and without challenging the validity of the notification, until same is not set aside and it is in field no effective decree can be passed. The Govt. was necessary party but was not impleaded in line of the defendants and further held: in absence of that no decree can be passed. MDA v. Mehmood Akram 2014 SCR 995 (B)
  34. Mst. Kalsoom Begum, who was admittedly, one of the plaintiffs before the trial Court and in whose favour a decree has also been passed by the trial Court, was necessary party. — She was not impleaded as party in the line of the respondents before any appellate Court. Held: It was settled principle of law that no effective order can be passed without impleding a person in the line of the respondent, who is necessary party. M. Hussain v. Abdul Rasheed & 6 others 2014 SCR 1636 (B) The Azad Govt. of the State of J&K & others vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another ( Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2000 decided on 4.10.2012), M. Subhan vs. Custodian of Evacuee property & others (Civil appeal No. 24 of 2014, decided on 29.4.2014), 2011 SCR 159 &1993 SCR 245 rel.
  35. Mst. Kalsoom Begum, who was one of the plaintiffs and a decree has been passed in her favour by the trial Court, was necessary party but she has not been arrayed as party in the line of the respondents before any Court — Held: that the appeal in the Court of District Judge, High Court and in this Court was incompetently filed and the same is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Muhammad Hussain v. Abdul Rasheed & 6 others 2014 SCR 1636 (D)
  36. All the parties in lower forum against whom an appeal is preferred, must be arrayed as party in the line of respondents and all those persons who were party in the lower forum and any relief is claimed against them without arraying them as party in the line of respondents, the appeal is not competent and merits dismissal. Molvi A. Latif Qari v. Azad Govt. 2014 SCR 1104 (E)
  37. Held: The necessary party is such a party in whose absence no effective order or decree can be passed. Sardar M. Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR 1156 (C)
  38. AJ&K Rules of Business, 1985 — only Secretary made as party — Finance Department not the Secretary— has to be consulted in finance’s matters — If, in the opinion of Chief Executive’s order was justified, in that case only the Secretary of the department could be directed to process the case and not the Finance department. The perusal of writ petition reveals that only the Secretary Finance has been arrayed as party and not the Finance department whereas according to the statutory provisions of Rule of Business, 1985, it is not the Secretary but the finance department who has to be consulted in finance matters, therefore, without arraying Finance department issuance of direction in the impugned judgment is not legal and sustainable.  Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Muhammad Younas Abbasi & 12 others 2016 SCR 887 (C)
  39. Arraying of all land-owners — not universal principle — determination of — in light of facts and relief sought — It is not universal principle in every case all the land owners are necessary party, rather for determination of the fact; whether, a person is a necessary party or not, the Court has to ascertain from the contents of the pleadings of the parties the prayed relief and if in absence of a person no effective adjudication is possible, then the suit will fail. But if according to the facts of the case and the relief sought, effective adjudication is possible then the suit will be competent. In the light of the peculiar facts of this case, there was hardly any need of arraying the whole land owners as party, hence, the observation is against law. Mushtaq Ahmed v. M. Ishaque & 7 others 2016 SCR 921 (D)
  40. Writ petition — Board of Revenue — not arraying of — fatal and results in dismissal of writ petition —Admittedly, the Board of Revenue has not been arrayed as party in the memo of writ petition . The judgment of the Member of Board of Revenue has been challenged in the writ petition and the learned High Court in the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment among others, set-aside the “order of Board of Revenue dated 21.01.2004”. On this legal proposition , law is almost settled and this Court in a number of cases has held that according to the statutory provision of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, and rules made thereunder the decision of  Member of Board of Revenue is treated as decision of Board of Revenue . When the decision of Member of Board is challenged the Board of Revenue is necessary Party. Zafar Iqbal Khan & 4 others v. Ashiq Hussain & 34 others 2016 SCR 1004 (A) 2011 SCR 159 & 2016 SCR 33, rel.
  41. The order passed by an authority cannot be set aside without arraying the authority as party — No effective order can be passed against a person who is not impleaded as party. Mst. Maqsood Begum  & 14 others v. Naseem Akhter & 9 others 2016 SCR 33 (B) 2000 SCR 500, 2003 SCR 74, 2005 SCR 57, 2011 SCR 159 and 2014 SCR 1085 ref.
  42. Non-arraying of selection committee — effect of — The petitioners have failed to array the selection committee as party to the writ petition. Even on this ground they don’t deserve for any relief. Ghulam Nabi  & another v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 286 (E)
  43. Job of the Selection Board is only to determine the suitability of the candidate and not to give the effect of promotion. Held: It cannot be said that the Selection Board was the necessary party. Dr. Javed Akhter Rathore v. Dr.Abdul Khalid & 3 others 2016 SCR 1634 (A) 2008 SCR 230 rel.
  44. —determination of—question of—contents of the plaint—are of basic importance—For determination of the question whether the omitted party is necessary to be impleaded, the contents of the plain are of basic importance.  In absence of the necessary party appeal before the High Court as well as before this Court was not competent. Sakeena Bibi v. Muhammad Ashiq & others 2017 SCR 242 (A) Mst. Nazir Begum vs. Muhammad Akram (Civil Appeal No. 115/2013, decided on 20.01.2016), 1993 SCR 245 & 2000 YLR 1918, rel.
  45. —non-arraying of—petitioners of other two writ petitions—even if the writ petition of Ch. Latif Akbar is presumed incompetent—the impugned judgment will hold the field—as the petitioners-beneficiaries of subject matter, of other two writ petitions not arrayed as party—  Through the impugned judgment the learned High Court jointly decided three writ petitions bearing Nos.2694, 2805 and 2867 of 2016. The appellants, Azad Govt. & others, have only challenged the impugned judgment to the extent of writ petition No.2694 titled Ch. Latif Akbar and others vs. Azad Govt. & others. They failed to array the persons who were petitioners before the High Court in the other two writ petitions. Most of them are students who have got admission in the institutions established under the Education Package and some of them are the parents of the students, thus, they are the beneficiaries of the Education Package. If for the sake of arguments the writ petition No.2694/2016 is presumed incompetent even then the impugned judgment will hold field because the other two writ petitions have been decided through the same judgment. The appellants have not arrayed the petitioners of other two writ petitions who are beneficiaries of the Education Package as well as the impugned judgment which cannot be reversed in 40 absence of such necessary parties. The objection raised by the counsel for the respondents prevails. Ch. Latif Akbar & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 305 (A)
  46. — Argument that the writ petitions were filed without impleading the necessary parties, i.e. Local Govt. Board, Tendering Committee and many others, in the line of the respondents— writ petitions were liable to be dismissed—held: when the notification dated 12.12.2012, on the strength of which the whole process was conducted, was challenged before the High Court, then there was no need to implead all those Govt. functionaries as party who played their role in pursuance of that notification as if the notification is declared null and void then ultimately whole structure shall automatically fall down. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (E)                              
  47. —suit— adverse possession claimed over the crown land— necessary parties not impleaded—held: In absence of all the necessary parties, particularly the Government as well as the Forest department and the Revenue department— no decree can be passed. Khaliq Nawaz &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2017 SCR 1504 (C) PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 102 rel.
  48. —writ petition in absence of necessary party—contention of the appellant that his appointment was made on the recommendations of respective selection committee —-The committee has not been impleaded in the line of respondents, hence, the writ petition was not maintainable in absence of necessary party—held: the appointment of the appellant, herein, was challenged, which was made on the recommendations of the respective selection committee, until and unless the selection committee is not arrayed as party in the line of respondents, the appointment of the appellant, herein, cannot be declared invalid. Syed Zahoor Hussain Shah vs Imran Raiz & others 2018 SCR 386 (A)
  49. —co-sharer in Khewat—non-arraying of co-sharer in lis— claim for adverse possession—no decree can be passed without necessary party—if such decree passed, the same has no value in eye of law—-the claim of the appellant is on the basis of adverse possession, for which it is settled principle of law that without impleading the necessary party, no decree can be passed. It reveals from the record that the respondents are also co-sharers in the khewat, but they have not been arrayed as the party in the suit. The possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all co-sharers and nature of possession of co-sharer cannot be said as adverse to the other co-sharers. It is not denied that the vendor/co-sharer was also the share-holder in the land but under law, the co-sharer is necessary party and he can only be excluded if the actual ouster of co-sharer is established but no such eventuality is available in the case in hand, therefore, no suit can be filed without impleading the necessary party and if any decree has been passed, the same has no value in the eye of law. Muhammad Saleem vs Shahid Iqbal & others 2018 SCR 572 (A)
  50. 1st year in the MBBS course has been completed but the nominations of the candidates and their merit has not been challenged, therefore, the respondents, herein, cannot get rid of the consequences of not challenging the admission of the candidates with whom they were competing despite of declaration of their result. AJ&K Joint Admission vs Habiba Tawasar & others 2018 SCR 1214 (B)
  51.  —impleadment of—negligence in prosecuting the case–not entitled to discretionary relief—powers of the Courts—Held that no doubt, the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction or even this Court in appeal has vast powers to implead the necessary party for doing complete justice, but in this case, the petitioners have been very negligent in prosecuting their case and they are not entitled to discretionary relief after a period of four years. Muhammad Arshad Khan & 16 others v. Member Board of Revenue & 10 others 2019 SCR 942 (B)
  52.  —misdescription of the party—can be corrected by the Court itself—Held. throwing out a genuine claim of a party on such a technical ground is not a policy of law. Zainab Rasheed v.Azad Govt. & 4 others 2019 SCR 960 (A) 1999 SCMR 2150, PLD 1985 SC 438 rel.
  53. — Government was authority, who issued the notification dated 11.1.2017, it was enjoined upon the appellants before the Service Tribunal to implead the Govt. as such and thereafter array the other respondents, who issued the other orders for deputing the respondents on the course on the basis of this notification. In appeal before the Service Tribunal, the Govt. who was a necessary party, was not impleaded as such, therefore, held: that the appeal was not competent and the Service Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and has issued the direction on an incompetent appeal. Inspector General of Police & others        Muhammad Fareed & others 2019 SCR 351 (B)
  54.      —non impleadment—effect of—one of the plaintiffs not arrayed as party before the High Court— its name is expressly and clearly finds place in the plaint, the decisions and decrees of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court but despite this, nonimpleading it as party is a fatal defect and on this sole reason–held:  appeal was not competent before the High Court. Zulfiqar Shah & others  v. Zaitoon Shabir Gillani & others 2019 SCR 355  (A) 2017 SCR 305 & 2017 SCR 242 Ref
  55. —compromise on behalf of the Government—without impleading the Government as a necessary party—Order XXVII, CPC and chapter V, R, 28, 35 of the AJ&K Law Department Manual, 2016—maintainability of compromise—contention that only necessary party in the case in hand was Chief Engineer, who was an employer in the case and the concerned Engineer (of the company). Held: that this contention of the learned Advocate cannot be accepted because the same runs counter to the provisions contained in Order XXVII, CPC and chapter V, R. 35 of Law Department Manual, 2016. Further held that it was the duty of the Additional District Judge as well as the High Court to determine as to whether the compromise was lawful and has been filed under the proper authority. In our considered view, the learned Additional District Judge as well as the High Court has not considered this aspect of the case. Physical Planning & Housing Deptt. & 3 others v. MAM International & 4 others 2020 SCR 326 (B) 2001 SCR 271 Ref.
  56. —Service appeal—the selection committee, who determines the suitability and fitness of an employee for promotion, is necessary party and without arraying the same or challenging its
  57. recommendations the appeal is not competent. Muhammad Khalil Baig Versus
  58. MS DHQ Kotli & 3 others 2021 SCR 195 (B)
  59. —impugned notification issued on the recommendation of  Selection Board—held: without challenging the proceedings of Selection Board and arraying it as party, the appeal is incompetent.     Mehmood Hussain & 5 others Versus Azad Govt. & 54 others 2021 SCR 214 (A)
  60. —Writ/PLA—selection committee was necessary party–without arraying selection committee as party, writ cannot be issued and PLA in present form is not maintainable. Maryam Saeed  versus District Education Officer & 7 others 2021 SCR 319 (A)  PLJ 1990 SC (AJ&K) 38 ref.
  61. —Writ—no effective writ can be issued without impleading the necessary party. Abdullah Khalid Versus District Judge Bagh & 3 others 2021 SCR 435 (A)  2003 SCR  142, 2013 SCR 222 & 2014 SCR 816 rel.
  62. —Writ—maintainability of—order issued on recommendation of—selection committee—the selection committee, which determines the suitability and fitness is necessary party—writ rightly dismissed. Shakeela Naz versus Director Schools & 4 others 2021 SCR 601 (A & B)Muhammad Khurshid Baig v. Medical Superintendent District Headquarter Hospital Kotli and other, Civil appeal no. 167 of 2019, decided on 16.06.2021 rel. 
  63. —Suit for possession—-impugned orders of proprietary rights issued by allotment committee— non impleadment of allotment committee—effect of—plaintiff-appellants failed to array allotment of land committee as party rather arrayed the Chairman allotment committee—held: the allotment of land committee was necessary party and without arraying the allotment of land committee, the proprietary rights of respondents cannot be set aside. Mst. Rehana Faizullah v. & others v. Ifatmanullah & others 2022 SCR 108 (B) PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38 rel
  64. —Writ— Secretary Finance arrayed as party in the line of respondents and not the Finance Deptt. —u/r 15 of Rules of Business, 1985, it is not the Secretary but the Finance Department who has to be consulted with in finance’s matters— held: the Finance Department was necessary party and without impleading it as party the writ petition was not maintainable. Shafaqat Habib Lone v. & another Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 179 (A) 2016 SCR 887, PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38 & 2013 SCR 22 Rel
  65. —Writ— appointment order of respondent was challenged by way of writ petition— Selection Committee not arrayed as party in the line of respondents—held: Selection Committee was a necessary party and without impleading the Selection Committee, writ was not maintainable in the eye of law. Safina Khan v. AJ&K Khan & others 2022 SCR 758 (A) 2005 SCR 57 and 2018 SCR 386 ref.
  66. —Writ— Secretary PDO was not arrayed as party in his own official capacity—it was the Secretary PDO, through whom the notice of Court was to be served—Held: in absence of necessary party i.e., Secretary PDO, no writ could be issued by the High Court. Shujjha Ali khan v. Ghulam sarwar Lone & others 2022 SCR 787 (D) 1998 SCR 167, 2003 SCR 142 & 2016 SCR 33 ref.
  67. —The authority who passes the order under challenge, is necessary to be impleaded as party to the proceedings and without its impleadment, lis would not be maintainable. Sadaf Iftikhar v. P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 954 (B) 2003 SCR 142, 2012 SCR 181 & 2019 SCR 351 ref.
  68. — Writ was filed for seeking direction to give effect to the notification— from the date of approval of the Rules Framing Committee— the said notification was issued from the office of the Services and General Administration Department, but the petitioners, therein, arrayed Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, as party in the line of respondents. The same way, Secretary Finance has been arrayed in the line of respondents, whereas, the Services and General Administration Department and Finance Department were necessary parties and without impleading them in the line of respondents, the writ petition was not maintainable. Secretary Finance Deptt. &others v. Muhammad Rizwan Abbasi & others 2022 SCR 1387 (A) 2016 SCR 887 & 1998 SCR 167 rel.
  69. —Board of revenue—The impugned transfer notification was issued by the Board of Revenue but the appellant in the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal has arrayed the Senior Member Board of Revenue as party while ignoring that in this case the transfer notification issued by the Board of Revenue was challenged, hence, Board of Revenue was the necessary party to be impleaded in the line of the respondents. Muhammad Qadeer v. Minister of Revenue Deptt. & others 2022 SCR 1426 (D) 2018 SCR 386 rel.
  70. —Appellant solicited retrospective effect of his promotion from the date of his officiating promotion—but did not arrayed other Tehsildars as a party in the appeal before the Service Tribunal— other Tehsildar were necessary party—Argument: the other Tehsildars were not necessary party as interest of none of them was involved in the controversy nor any relief was sought against them rather appellant solicited for retrospective promotion and no right of other Tehsildars is affected. Held: It is beyond comprehension that what sort of retrospective effect the appellant wants in his favour as retrospective effect means the benefits to be availed after officiating promotion. This is an obvious fact that if the appellant is given the effect of regular promotion when he was promoted on officiating basis, the seniority of to the Tehsildars promoted during this period shall definitely be affected, hence, the other Tehsildars were necessary party, which have not been arrayed in line of respondents in the appeal before the Service Tribunal. Shahzad Naseem Abasi v. Board of Revenue & others 2022 SCR 1610 (A) 2022 SCR 1163 and 2019 SCR 101
  71. —Writ petition—non-arraying of necessary party—effect of—appointment order issued by the Divisional Director Elementary and Secondary Education Schools (Female) Poonch Division; the petitioner did not array him as party in writ petition. Held: it is settled principle of law that no effective writ petition can be issued without impleading the necessary party. Ghazala Farid v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1615 (B) 2013 SCR 222 & 2014 SCR 816 rel.
  72. —Writ petition—necessary party—Allotment Committee and Revising Authority, not entered as party in line of respondents in the writ petition. Held: writ petition before the High Court was not maintainable. Nabeel Akram v. MDA Mirpur & others  2022 SCR 1630 (A) 2005 SCR 57; 1998 PLC (C.S) 153 & 1996 SCR 161 rel.
  73.  — writ — election proceedings — stay of — an effective relief cannot be granted in absence of necessary parties — once nomination paper submitted and campaign is completed, valuable rights accrued in favour of contesting candidates, making them indispensable parties — without their presence, no meaningful relief can be granted to the petitioners – — on this sole ground writ before the High Court and PLA before Supreme Court liable to be dismissed. Raja Muhammad Shafat Khan & others v. AJ&K Election Commission & others 2023 SCR 110 (B)
  74. writ petition — without arraying necessary party — Held: it is settled principle of law that the authority which has issued the order is a necessary party in the proceedings. The writ petition is held not competent in the circumstances when necessary party is not arrayed as party. Allah Ditta v. Board of Revenue & others 2023 SCR 159 (A,B) 2003 SCR 142, & 2016 SCR 33 ref.
  75. — writ — appointment made on recommendation of Selection Committee — but Selection Committee was not arrayed as party — held: The Selection Committee on whose recommendations the appointment made was surely a necessary party and in its absence no effective relief could have been granted — writ dismissed —. Wajid Hussain versus Naeem Ashraf & others 2023 SCR 652 (A & B) 2005 SCR 57 rel.
  76. — writ — impleadment of — Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) declared appellants as non-responsive and the order was challenged before Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) — appellant not arrayed BEC as party in the line of respondents who was a necessary party — it is settled principle of law that without impleadment of necessary party, no effective writ can be issued — BEC was necessary party who passed order against appellant, therefore appeal liable to be dismissed. M/s Sardar Ilyas Alam versus Secretary Public Works Dept. & 12 others 2023 SCR 1137 (F) 2003 SCR 142 ref.
  77. — an order passed by an officer under the authority, designated by the department, cannot be construed as the officers individual order, rather, it is deemed an order of the department itself — when such like orders are challenged, it becomes indispensable to include the concerned department as a necessary party. Muhammad Bashir vs Director General MDA & 3 others 2024 SCR 89(A) 2019 YLR 1123 ref.
  78. Writ — necessary party — non impleadment — effect of — notification issued by S&GAD assailed, however, the Secretary S&GAD has been arrayed as party but not the department — a necessary party is one who ought to have been joined and in whose absence, no effective decision can take place — Non-impleadment of S&GAD, who issued the notification creates a serious defect in the writ petition & renders it incompetent. Inhabitants of Village Lower Kot vs Azad Govt. & others 2024 SCR 109 (A) 2016 SCR 887 rel
  79. Writ — letter issued by PSC, wherein, the candidates were shortlisted, challenged — candidate ‘A’ not impleaded as party — held: no effective order or decree can be passed in absence of a particular party who is a necessary party — ‘A’ was necessary party to be arrayed in the line of respondents — the wit petition filed before the High Court was incompetent and liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. Raja Maqeet-ur-Rehman vs Public Service Commission & others 2024 SCR 200 (B) PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 102 2002 SCR 575 ref
  80. Writ — maintainability of — the authority who passes the order under challenge is necessary to be impleaded as party and without its impleadment, lis would not be maintainable. Muhammad Rasheed Khan & 10 others vs Custodian Evacuee Property 05 others 2024 SCR 187 (A) 2003 SCR 142 & 2012 SCR 181 ref
error: Content is protected !!