Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 70 of 1974, decided on 7th October 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated the 11th January 1974, in Regular Second Appeal No. 343 of 1972).
‑‑ O. XLI, r. 20, O. I, r. 10 read with Ss. 107 & 151‑Legal represen tatives, impleading of‑Petitioner's counsel not comparing typed memo. of appeal with copy of decree sheets in his possession and alleging omission to implead legal representatives being due to bona fide mistake of typist preparing memo. of appeal‑Case not one of error on part of typist alone‑Counsel equally to blame and peti tioners to suffer for this‑Petition seeking leave to implead legal representatives at a belated stage, held, rightly rejected as time‑barred.
Raja Said Akbar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ehsanul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 7th October 1974.
‑Chiragh Ali was one of the respon dents in the First Appeal filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. On his death his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. In the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioners in the High Court neither Chiragh Ali nor his legal representatives were impleaded. After a lapse of nearly one year. the petitioners moved an application in the High Court under Order XLI, rule 20 and Order I, rule 10 read with sections 107 and 151, C. P. C. for correction of the memorandum of appeal and including the names of the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali as respondents.
The explanation given by the petitioners for the omission to implead the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali, deceased, was not cogent and rejected by a learned Judge. Consequent upon it the appeal qua the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali was declared to have abated:
The petitioners seek leave to appeal on the ground that the omission to implead the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali was due to a bona fide mistake of the typist who had prepared the memorandum of appeal. This contention was considered, by the learned Judge in the High Court and found to be inadequate for condoning the delay and depriving the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali of valuable rights which had accrued to them.
Raja Said Akbar has not been able to convince us that the petitioner should not be penalized for the error made by the typist or their counsel. It was the duty of the latter to compare the typed memorandum of appeal with the copy of the decree‑sheets supplied to him which was filed along with the memorandum of appeal in the High Court. It was thus not a case of an error on the part of the typist alone, but equally of the learned counsel for which the petitioners have to suffer.
Leave to appeal is refused. Dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer