Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1970, decided on 17th June 1976.

(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan (now Lahore High Court, Lahore), passed in L. P. A. No. 376 of 1965 on 1‑4‑1966).

‑‑ Art. 185--Appeal‑Abatement‑Condonation of delay--Appellant dying but application for bringing his legal representatives on record not fled for almost 4 years nor any heed paid to notices issued by Registry of High Court‑‑Except vague assertions about ailment of members of family of deceased unsupported by medical certificates and their trained circumstances no satisfactory explanation of delay forthcoming‑Appeal dismissed.‑[ Abatement‑Appeal (civil) ‑‑‑Delay].

Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing.: 17th June 1976.

‑This appeal must fail on the prevalence of a preliminary objection. It is not disputed that Seth Ahmad Ali appellant herein died on 3‑3‑1972 and the application for bringing on record his legal representatives as not filed till 9‑2‑1976 almost four years after his death. It appears that having learnt about the death of the appellant, his learned counsel Malik Amjad Hussain informed the Registry by his applications dated 25‑12‑1974 that lie was trying to contact the A. O. R to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant and yet nothing tangible appears to have been done till the Registry was constrained to issue a notice on 14‑7‑1975 which went unheeded. Notice was then repeated on 3‑9‑1975 and was followed by yet another notice issued on 23‑10‑1975, which too failed to elicit response. Finally on 30‑1‑1976, a notice was issued to the A. O. R. to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. It was then that for the first time an application was moved on 9‑2‑1976 to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.

Having heard the learned counsel as also having perused the application for condonation of delay submitted by him, we are trot convinced that th6 explanation offered makes out a good cause for condonation of the gross delay of almost four years. Except vague assertions about the almost four years. Except vague assertions about the ailment of the members of the family of the deceased appellant unsupported by medical certificates and their straitened circumstances, no satisfactory explanation of, the delay of 1348 days is forthcoming. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on that technical ground, with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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