The discretion to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is to be exercised in a reasonable manner, and when there is a serious conflict of interest, the proper procedure would be to join the applicants as respondents rather than co-petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application filed by Shahida Parveen and Nargis Mir Daughters of Ghulam Ahmad Dar praying for their impleadment as petitioners to the main writ petition.

2. According to the applicants, M/s Dar Sons Kashmir Tanneries, Srinagar is a partnership firm that was constituted in terms of partnership deed executed on 24th July, 1980. It is pleaded that Haji Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Ghulam Mohammad Dar, Shahjahan Begum and Shahida Parveen were partners of the aforesaid partnership firm. It has been submitted that Haji Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Ghulam Mohammad Dar and Shahjahan Begum have since expired. According to the applicants, Gulzar Ahmad Dar projecting himself as the Managing Partner of the firm M/S Dar Sons has filed the instant writ petition, though he is not the Managing Partner of the firm. It is pleaded that initially the writ petition was filed only by , Gulzar Ahmad Dar but lateron another partner of the firm, Zafar Ahmad Dar, who happened to be the legal heir of Ghulam Ahmad Dar sought his impleadment as party petitioner to the writ petition and vide order dated 21.04.2012 he was arrayed as petitioner No.2 to the writ petition. On these grounds it has been submitted that applicant Shahida Parveen, who is also a partner of the firm, as also applicant Nargis Mir, who is legal heir of partner Haji Ghulam Ahmad Dar, deserve to be impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition.

3. The application has been contested by the original writ petitioner by filing a reply thereto. In his reply the original writ petitioner has, while admitting the existence of partnership deed dated 23rd July, 1980, submitted that Haji Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Ghulam Mohammad Dar, Zafar Ahmad, Shahjahan Begum and Shahida Parveen were partners of the firm. The writ petitioner has submitted that Haji Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Ghulam Mohammad Dar, Zafar Ahmad, Shahjahan Begum and Shahida Parveen were partners of the Firm M/s Dar Sons, out of which Ghulam Mohammad Dar, Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Shahjahan Begum and Zafar Ahmad have expired. It has been contended that applicant Shahida Parveen Shahnaz Parveen, Shahzada, Shahida, Sabia, Sahira and applicant Nargis executed power of attorney dated 06.01.2003 and appointed the writ petitioner Gulzar Ahmad Dar as their lawful attorney empowering and authorizing him to act to sell, mortgage or lease out to any person or bank their share of partnership business and to execute the necessary documents in this behalf. It has been further submitted that Mst. Zaina one more daughter of Ghulam Ahmad Dar has executed a general power of attorney dated 06.01.2003 in favour of her brother Gulzar Ahmad Dar, whereby similar powers have been given by the principal in favour of the attorney. Similarly, another partner Ghulam Mohammad Dar has executed similar power of attorney in favour of Gulzar Ahmad Dar on 19.09.2005.

4. It is contended that on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, a supplementary partnership deed was executed by Ghulam Mohammad Dar, Shahida, Shahzada, Sabia, Sahira, Nargis and Shahjahan Begum through their attorney namely Gulzar Ahmad Dar on 04.07.2007, whereby these persons have transferred their respective shares of partnership business to Saba Dar and it has been provided that these persons are deemed to have retired from partnership firm and their rights and liabilities are deemed to have extinguished and vested with Saba Dar. It has been further contended that in terms of this supplementary partnership deed, Saba Dar has been put in possession of the assets of the partnership by the aforesaid persons and in lieu of their surrender and retirement from partnership business, they have been indemnified and compensated to their satisfaction by Saba Dar. On the basis of these submissions it has been submitted that the applicant, Shahida Parveen and Nargis Mir have no share in the partnership business and, therefore, they have no right to seek their impleadment as party petitioners in the writ petition.

5. The applica