Find a Lawyer

SHEIKH HAROON BUKSH versus SHAIKH TAHIR BUKSH

ections Sections 295 and 278 - Chief Court Rules (OS), CHAP XXII, RMS - Civil Procedure Code (V 1908), O XX, RJ3 and Section 114 Succession Orders in the Case of the Administrative Administration in Controversial Cases - In exchange for proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925 under the Order under the Succession Act, 1925 under the Nature Succession Act, 1925, the etition petitioner applied the section of the Security Act 1925 Reviewed an order passed by the High Court under 295. As a result, in response to the controversial nature of the succession process, the application for issuance of letters of administration was changed to a civil suit - it was the exchange of applicants that was an improper order, which made the proceedings in accordance with the administration and Said that the preliminary injunction should be approved. Was against the law; and the suit should be a regular suit and not a suit for administration approval. The anonymous order identified the parties and indicated who the defendant and defendant should be and mentioned that the case would be in the form of a suit for the administration of their property. The successor and all subsequent components of Section 295 of the Succession Act 1925 and the AXX, CPC were fully complied with. - When the parties were the legal heirs of the late and in such a case, they were fighting to get the property left to the deceased. Any of the legal heirs can file a lawsuit for the administration of the property or file a petition for approval of the ion administration under section 278 of the Succession Act 1925 and section 295 of the Succession Act 1925. In the case where the dispute was present, then the terms of the CPC ust court's immovable order

PLD 2017 Sindh 563

Before Nazar Akbar, J

Sheikh HAROON BUKSH--Petitioner

versus

Shaikh TAHIR BUKSH and 2 others—Respondents

S.M.As. Nos. 199 and 200 of 2015, decided on 10th April, 2017. Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)—

—Ss. 295 & 278—Chief Court (Sindh) Rules (OS), Chap. XXII, RMS—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, RJ3 & S. 114-Succession—Procedure in contentious cases—Decree in administration suit—Nature of order under §.295 of the Succession Act, 1925-Conversion of proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 to a suit of administration under O. XX, R.13, C.P.C.—Petitioner sought review of order passed by High Court under S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925, whereby in view of contentious nature of succession proceedings, application seeking issuance of letters of administration were converted into a civil suit— Contention of applicant inter alia was that impugned order, which converted proceedings into suit for administration and stated that the preliminary decree be passed was contrary to law; and the suit should be regular suit and not a suit for administration-validity—Impugned order identified the parties and identified as to who should be the plaintiff and defendant and mentioned that the suit would be in the fÓrm; of a suit for administration of the properties of the deceased and therefore all ingredients of S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925 and O.XX, C.P.C, were fully adhered to—When parties were legal heirs of the deceased and were contesting with regard to share in property left by the deceased, in such situation any one of the legal heirs could file a suit for administration of properties or file an application under S.278 of the Succession Act, 1925 for grant of "letter of administration" and in terms of S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925 in the case where there was contention, then proceedings were supposed to be converted as nearly as they could be, into a "regular suit" according to provisions of the C.P.C.—Court in the impugned order exercised powers of a court of original civil jurisdiction and once an order was passed, the court also had power to take further steps to minimize delay in disposal of dispute and the court was under a statutory obligation to pass an order for preliminary decree—Use of the word "shall" in O.XX, R.13, C.P.C, was of mandatory nature, and the C.P.C, did not envisage any other fÓrm; a suit except for a suit for administration of properties under O.XX, C.P.C.—No error on the

face of record was found in the impugned order—Review application was rejected, in circumstances. [Op. 565, 566] A & B

Haq Nawaz Talpur for Petitioner.

Aminuddin Ansari for Respondent No.l.

Date of hearing: 10th April, 2017.

criminal advocate from Chak 4 b c lawyer