Kausar Sultana Hussain, J. - : Mrs. Anita Nalini Dass Versus Muhammad Jumman
Kausar Sultana Hussain, J. - : Mrs. Anita Nalini Dass Versus Muhammad Jumman
Mrs. ANITA NALINI DASS Versus MUHAMMAD JUMMAN (Read Full Judgement)
Specific Relief Act, 1877 39, 42, 54 | Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order I(Rule 10)
The case involves Mrs. Anita Nalini Dass, the plaintiff, who filed a suit for cancellation, declaration, and injunction against the
defendants for allegedly transferring her property illegally. An application by Zahid Rasheed (the proposed intervener) to be
added as a defendant, claiming he was a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property, was dismissed by the court since his
presence would amount to introducing a new cause of action and unnecessary prejudice to the plaintiff.
**Application dismissal**: Zahid Rasheed’s application to be impleaded as defendant was dismissed.
necessary and proper party, Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., Dominus Litis, fraudulent property transfer, mentally incapacitated
plaintiff, bona fide purchaser, grievance against defendants, new cause of action, right to sue,
Key Legal Issues
Whether a proposed intervener is a necessary and proper party
The determination of adding a new cause of action in the suit
Legal standing of the plaintiff, being mentally incapacitated, in protecting her property
Holding
The court dismissed the application of Zahid Rasheed for being added as a defendant, holding that his presence in the suit was
unnecessary as it would introduce a new cause of action, not directly relevant to the original dispute between the plaintiff and
defendants Nos. 1 and 2.
Reasoning
The intervener did not claim any grievance against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff had no concern with the intervener.
Allowing the intervener to join would introduce a new cause of action.
The plaintiff is 'Dominus Litis' and should not be forced to add parties against her wishes.
Adding intervener at this stage would unnecessarily prejudice and embarrass the plaintiff