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 Appeal No. 173 of 1975, decided on 5th May, 1982.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 9‑5‑1975 passed in Writ
Petition No. 247/R/74).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
‑‑ O. XXII, r. 4‑Heirs of deceased, impleading of‑Notice given to Advocate on Record to implead heirs of deceased as respondents but needful not done and requisite application not made within statutory period of 90 days‑Subsequent application filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, held, not based on convincing grounds hence application dismissed resulting in abatement of appeal.‑[Abate ment].
Sh. Abdul Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed lnayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Respondents Nos. 1 and '2 : Ex Darte.
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 5tb May, 1982.
.‑This is a settlement matter in which leave was granted by order dated 10‑10‑1975.
2. Before us the learned counsel raised a preliminary objection namely that Muhammad Amin (respondent No. 3), the only contesting respondent had died on 19‑10‑1977. A notice was given by his legal representatives to the appellant requiring them to implead the heirs of the deceased as respon dents in his place. The notice was received by the Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant but he did not do the needful and failed to make the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days. Subsequently, however, he filed an application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent as respondents on 24‑5‑1978 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application.
3. We have gone through the said application and heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents referred us to Sardar Muhammad Tufail v. C. S. C. and others (1970 S C M R 72), to urge that delay should not be condoned in such a case.
Having considered this question we feel that the grounds for condo nation of delay put forward by the appellant's counsel are not convincing. We, therefore, reject the application with the result that the appeal is dismissed as having abated.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer