Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ZAMIR HUSSAIN versus AQIL


Section 100 and O XXII, the Second Appeal Order Two respondents who died during the jurisdiction of the appellant failed to file their legal representatives in a disagreement An appeal has also been filed for the declaration, The situation in this case has declined.

1982 C L C 979

[Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid]

Before Manzoor Hussain Sial, J

ZAMIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Appellants

versus

AQIL AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Regular Second Appeal No. 594 of 1965, B. W. P., decided on 3rd October, 1981.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

S. 100 & O. XXII, r. 2.‑Second Appeal‑Decree‑Two of respon dents dying during pendency of appeal‑Appellant failing to bring on record their legal representatives within limitation‑Suit for declaration also having an indivisible decree‑Appeal, held, abated in circumstances of case. [Abatement].

Ch. Abdus Sattar for Appellants.

Sh. Inayat Alt for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1981.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 27‑5‑1965 of the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan whereby he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the contesting respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that Muhammad Ramzan respondent No. 2 and Diwan respondent No. 3 had died on 23‑6‑1969 and in 1968 respectively but the appellants failed to bring their legal represen tatives on the record within the statutory. time provided under the law as such the appeal has abated. It was also stated that the suit for declaration having an indivisible decree and interest of the appellants had abated in toto. He also referred to his application (Civil Misc. No. 241 of 1981), dated 24‑5‑1980 supported by an affidavit pointing out the demise of the above mentioned respondents but neither their legal representatives were impleaded nor an application for setting aside abatement had been moved since then.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants could not controvert the sub missions made by learned counsel for the surviving respondents and stated that he had made his best efforts to contact the appellants by sending them telegrams and various4etters but got no response.

4. I have heard learned counsel .for the parties and find that since the application dated 24‑5‑1980 is supported by an affidavit and certified copy from register of deaths maintained by the Union Council, Tarinda Gurgage, Tehsil Liaqatpur, District Rahimyar Khan which have not been controverted‑ Diwan and Muhammad Ramzan died and their legal representatives were not brought on the record within limitation, as such, this appeal has abated and I dispose it of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
family advocate from Lower Dir lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.