Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1973, decided on 3rd March, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 22‑9‑1972 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Petition No. 506 of 1972).
‑‑‑O. I, r. 10‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S. 3‑‑Non‑joinder of parties‑‑Legal representatives‑ Limitation‑‑‑ Condonation of delay‑Appellant died but no effort made by his legal representatives to get themselves substituted for him‑ Application for bringing them as legal representatives of appellant made after lapse of five years without explanation for delay for condonation‑ Legal representative stated that they were misled because of amendment made in provisions for substitution of legal representatives by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972‑‑Such reason did not find place in their application for condonation of delay nor other reasons given therein showing sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay of five years‑ Delay, not condoned and appellant having died, appeal, held, could not proceed in his absence‑‑Appeal declared imperfect and posed of as such.
Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
Respondents: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1986.
‑‑The appellant in this appeal died on 3rd of March, 1980, but no effort was made by the legal representatives to get themselves substituted in his place until the 29th of July, 1985, when such an application was filed, but in that' application too no attempt is made to justify the delay and all that is stated is that they were illiterate and had no knowledge of these proceedings as the appeal was being prosecuted by their father, and the more so that they had no knowledge as to which counsel was engaged to prosecute the appeal. The learned counsel for the legal representatives, however, stated that they were misled because of the amendment made in the provision for the substitution of the legal representatives by the Law Reforms Ordinance. This reason does note find place in the application for the condonation of delay nor do the reasons given show sufficient cause for the condonation of an inordinate delay of almost five years.
Accordingly, we would not condone the delay and hold that as the appellant had died the appeal cannot proceed in his absence, and for that reason the record is defective. The appeal is thus imperfect and stands disposed of as such.
M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer