Find a Lawyer

Letter Patent Appeal No. 80 of 1967, heard on 10th October, 1984.

----0. XXII, rr. 3 , 11 & S. 151---Application for bringing on record legal representative of deceased appellant allowed without notice to respondents--Application for setting aside abatement not filed within time and requesting for condonation of limitation--Effect-- Appeal filed filed by appellant stood dismissed as abated being barred by time and having no merits. Muhammad Qayyum for Appellants. Amir Alam Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1983.

--It is stated that Muhammad Nazir Khan appellant No. 1 died on 2-2-1967. An application for bringing on record the legal representatives was put in on 3-10-1967 and it was allowed. The respondents have put in the aforetitled application on 22-12-1981 saying that the aforesaid order was without notice to them and that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives was not filed within 90 days nor any application for setting aside the abatement nor for condonation of limitation were put in. Therefore, the appeal has abated in toto as interest was common. Notice of this application was given to the appellants. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the application having been allowed, it is too late in the day to say that the appeal has abated. 3. The order allowing the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellants was passed without notice to the respondents. Therefore, they have the right to take objection. The transfer being joint, the appeal in the circumstances, would appear to have abated as a whole. 4. In any case, we have gone through the impugned order of the learned single Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Gut, dated 31-10-1966 in which the transfer of the appellants' predecessor-in-interest was set aside on the ground that the heirs of the allottee cannot each claim individually a house and the original allottee's two sons had already got two houses, one on Warns Road and the other in Prem Nagar, Lahore. Further that his widow Mst. Fazal Khair the appellants' Predecessor-in-interest was not in possession of the house in dispute on the relevant date viz. 20-12-1958 and that the allottee-respondents having been in possession were entitled to the transfer. The order appealed against is eminently just and legal, we say so with respect. It calls for no interference. Besides that it has been pointed out b the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal is barred by 33 days and the only ground given was that one of the appellants was ill No explanation was given as to why the others had not filed the appeal in time. No cogent reasons have been advanced to condone the delay, 5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed having abated being barred by time and having no merit. However, there will be no costs in the circumstances. H.I.T. Appeal dismissed,