Impleaded in oblivion of Order I Rule 10 “CPC"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed as contract administrator and engineer by the “CAA” through an independent agreement. It is added that by virtue of said agreement, the petitioners are only answerable to the “CAA”. It is submitted that the suit hinges upon an independent agreement executed between “CAA” and the “respondent”. Learned counsel emphasized that the petitioners being stranger to the said agreements, are neither proper nor necessary party to the suit but they have been impleaded in oblivion of Order I Rule 10 “CPC". In order to supplement his contentions, learned counsel has pointed out certain relevant part of the pleadings as well as agreements in question. It is emphatically contended that impleadment of the petitioners in the array of defendants will amount to burdening them with unnecessary litigation. In order to supplement his contentions, learned counsel has mainly relied upon “PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Sports Government of the Punjab and another v. Messrs QAVI ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. through Director and 2 others” (2007 MLD 89) and “NAVEED MERCHANT v. SAFDAR GONDAL and 4 others” (2013 CLD 66).

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