Find a Lawyer

Revision Application N0.51 of 1974, decided on 31st May, 1983.

‑‑‑O.XXII, rr.4 5 9‑‑Abatement‑‑Appointment of legal representatives‑ Abatement of suit‑‑Time‑barred application under r.4 for impleading legal representatives of deceased‑‑Court treating application under r.9 and setting aside abatement of suit and allowing names of legal representatives being brought on record‑‑Held: No illegality committed by trial Court in circumstances.‑‑[Abatement].

Nemo for Appellants. G.M. Ibrahim for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 31st May, 1983.

On 29th May,.1983 this case was adjourned at the request of Mr. Zaki Muhammad, for today as he stated before me that he has lost his brief and he needs two days time. However, he is absent today.

This revision application was filed in the year 1974 against the order of trial Court setting aside abatement of suit and allowing the names of the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant in the suit to be brought on record. The defendant in the suit stated to have died on 21st June,1971 but his counsel continued to appear in the suit up to 28th October, 1971 without disclosing the death of the defendant. However, on 28th October, 1971 a statement was made in Court with regard to the death of the defendant who was alleged to have died on 21st June,1971 but the names of L.Rs. were not disclosed in spite of application by the respondent/plaintiff. to disclose the names of the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant. The respondent/plaintiff made efforts privately and after ascertaining the names of the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant moved an application on 19th January, 1972 for impleading them as defendants in the suit. This applica tion was filed under Order XXII, rule 4, C.P.C. but as time for impleading the L.Rs. had already passed the Court treated this application as one under Order XXII, rule,9, C.P.C. and set aside the abatement of the suit and allowed the names of L.Rs. being brought on record. I have gone through the order of trial Court and find that the order was perfectly justified and in accord with the circumstances of the case. No illegality whatsoever has been committed by the Court below in treating the application under Order XXII, rule 4, C.P.C. as application under Order XXII, rule 9,1 C.P.C. in the circumstances of the case. There is no merit in this revision which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.B.A. Revision 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.