1977 PLP 200 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.‑These three appeals have been preferred against the same judgment of the Lahore Seat of the West Pakistan High Court by which learned Judges of the High Court had dismissed three revision applications filed against orders passed in execution by the Civil Judge, Khanewal. The dispute in these appeals arises out of agricultural land in Multan District which was sold by three different vendors on 14‑2‑1961 to the respondent Shaukat Ali and others (who are the respondents in these appeals). The three sales were pre‑empted by the respondent Abdul Rehman by means of three separate suits which were filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Khanewal. However, before these suits could be filed the pieces of land sold by the three vendors to the respondent Shaukat Ali and others had been transferred in consolidation proceedings and the land which were the subject‑matter of the sales which led to Civil Appeals 44 and 46 of 1971 had been transferred in consolidation proceedings to the appellants Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah, who are th6 appellants in these two appeals whilst the third piece of land sold on 14‑2‑1961 had been transferred in consolidation proceedings to the appellant Habibullah, who was the sole appellant in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1971. The three suits filed by the respondents were decreed by compromise on the statement of the appellants Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah that the suits could be decreed against them on payment to them of the prices deposited in Court for the land to be pre‑empted. As the suits were thus decreed against the appellants in the three appeals with their consent, the decree‑holder filed execution proceedings in each of the three suits which were allowed by the Civil Judge, Khanewal. Therefore, in each of these cases, the appellants Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah challenged the orders passed against them by the execution Court in three revisions in the High Court. As these revisions were dismissed on 22‑10‑1969, the appeallants Ghulam Hussain and Habibullah filed three separate petitions for leave in this Court against the dismissal of their revision applications and two of these petitions were time barred. All the petitions were admitted to regular hearing as they raised question of law but the two petitions which were time‑barred were admitted subject to the question of the limitation. Civil Appeals 44 and 46 of 1971 are time‑barred by 37 days but despite the express reference to this aspect of the case in the leave granting order the appellants have not cared to file even an application for condoning the delay with the result that there is no explanation whatsoever of the admitted delay in filing the petitions for leave. Accordingly, we dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 44 and 46 of 1971 as time-barred but without any order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1971.was filed by Ghulam Hussain alone and arises out of a suit decreed against him with his consent. Ghulam Hussain, however, died on 4‑8‑1974 but the application to implead his legal heirs was filed on 25‑5‑1976 after a delay of almost two years. The only explanation of this gross delay is that the legal heirs, who now seek to be impleaded, were not aware of the law. Even if they were not aware of the law, they were represented by an Advocate‑on‑Record, therefore, we are not satisfied with this explanation. The appeal has abated and is dismissed as such without any order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.