"A proforma defendant is a defendant against whom no relief is sought. He is arrayed as party only to avoid the defect of non-joinder of parties."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Sheet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI
Suit No. 1081 of 2007
Mr. Irfan Aziz, advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Muhammad Umar Farooq Khan, advocate.
Mr. Umar Shoaib Pirzada, advocate.
Ms. Ascho Marzia Begum, State Counsel.
Date of hearing : 14.09.2015.
ORDER ON C.M.A. No. 8669 of 2010
NADEEM AKHTAR, J. – This application has been filed by defendant No.6 (Chief Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Main Branch, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi) praying that his name be deleted from array of defendants.
2. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, partition, accounts, recovery of rent and mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No.36-C, 24th Commercial Street, Phase-II Extension, DHA Karachi, measuring 200 sq. yds., with construction thereon (‘the suit property’). It is the case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, that the suit property is owned jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No.2, each having 50% share therein. He has alleged that he has been illegally deprived of his business by defendants 1 and 2, and since the said defendants had misappropriated joint properties of the parties, he apprehends that the suit property will also be misappropriated. He has stated that the suit property was earlier mortgaged with National Bank of Pakistan, who is not providing any information to him about the status thereof. He has shown apprehension that since the suit property is in the possession and control of defendants 1 and 2, they may create any liability against it by encumbering or mortgaging it.
3. In this application, defendant No.6 has stated that there is no allegation against him in the plaint nor has any relief been claimed against him. Perusal of the plaint shows that there is a specific allegation against the said defendant that he has not disclosed to the plaintiff any information about the mortgage of the suit property despite several demands by the plaintiff. This allegation becomes relevant and important in view of the allegations made by the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 may encumber the suit property by mortgaging it. In my opinion, defendant No.6 is a proper party to these proceedings if not a necessary party, and his presence before this Court would certainly facilitate the Court in adjudicating upon the issues involved in this Suit effectually and completely. I am also of the view that no prejudice will be caused to defendant No.6 if he remains as a proforma defendant in this Suit as no relief has been sought against him by the plaintiff.
4. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 14.09.2015, whereby this application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge
