Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, dated the 25th June 1971, in R. F. A. No. 16/61/BWP).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),

O. XXII, r. 9‑Condonation of delay‑Legal representatives not brought on record for about 1 years after death of deceased appellant‑Application for setting aside abatement of appeal‑Almost all heirs of deceased major at time of his death‑Ground taken for condonation of delay: that Special Attorney of deceased .did not inform them of proceeding pending in Court Held: no valid ground made out for condonation of delay.

M. Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 26th October 1971.

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

Haji Abdul Ghafoor, the predecessor of the petitioners, had filed a pre‑emption suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, which was dismissed, An appeal was preferred in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, through Abdul Hamid, a special attorney. Haji Abdul Ghafoor was murdered on the 4th of July 1963, and as his legal representatives were not brought on record within time, the appeal resulted in abatement. An application was moved by the present petitioners under Order XXI1, rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the 1st of October 1964, a year and three months after the murder of Abdul Ghafoor. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay was filed along with the application. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court have refused to set aside the abatement, and have dismissed the application and the appeal on the ground that no sufficient cause was disclosed to condone the delay of 1 years that has occurred in filing of the application for setting aside the abatement, and for impleadment of the legal representatives of Abdul Ghafoor. According to their view, it was difficult to believe that the legal representatives of the deceased‑appellant did not know about the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners alleged that as the special attorney was ill‑disposed towards them, he did not inform them about the pendency of the appeal until a day before they moved their application for setting aside the abatement. They have further held that it was the duty of Abdul Hamid, the special attorney, after the death of the appellant, to keep the proceedings alive before the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Learned Judges in the High Court were wrongly influenced by the conduct of Abdul Hamid, who ceased to be the attorney after the murder of Abdul Ghafoor, his principal. That may be so, but it is difficult to disagree with the High Court that the petitioners, all of whom except one are majors, were completely ignorant of the appeal filed by Abdul Ghafoor in the High Court. Nor is it easy to believe that the special attorney did not inform them or the learned counsel, who was engaged in the case, about the murder of Haji Abdul Ghafoor when it took place. It seems to be a case of inexplicable negligence and carelessness in not pursuing the appeal.

On the facts as disclosed, it is difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court has not properly exercised its discretion in refusing to set aside the abatement. As no valid ground is made out for our interference, we would dismiss this petition.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.