Final adjudication of the case as the plaintiff was dismissed

case of “MUHAMMAD IMRAN v. PRESIDENT KASB BANK LTD. and another” (2014 CLC 561) as under: - “

10. From the perusal of the above record available with the plaint and the examination of the contents of the plaint, it seems that the presence of defendant No.2 is necessary for the final adjudication of the case as the plaintiff was dismissed from service on the basis of the said report issued by the defendant No.2 and so also from the fact, that the defendant No.1 has categorically stated that they have relied upon the report of defendant No.2 for taking such an extreme action against the plaintiff. Therefore, since the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 is based upon the inspection report of defendant No.2, as such the presence of defendant No.2 is very much a necessity and things would only be crystallized after completion of the evidence of defendant No.2 as the plaintiff relies and depends upon the report of defendant No.2 for making out its case of damages against the defendant No.1.

11. It is also a matter of record that the defendant No.2 has already taken a stance in the written statement to the effect that defendant No.2 is not liable for any of the acts as alleged by the plaintiff in its pleadings; that no cause of action had accrued against the defendant No.2 that the suit as framed is not maintainable. Therefore, the right path for the defendant No.2 was to lead its own evidence to this effect, and not to hold back or retard by filing this application after such lapse of time.”

Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) u/s. 115, C.P.C.
293-I-14