1986 PLP 1275 (SCMR)
Dr. GHULAM BHEEK and others — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1275 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. GHULAM BHEEK and others — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1275 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1275 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1275 (SCMR) (Dr. GHULAM BHEEK and others — Appellants Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No. 4. for Petitioner On Civil Miscellaneous No.23-R of 1986).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1981.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 4. for Petitioner On Civil Miscellaneous No.23‑R of 1986).
- MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C J.‑‑Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the main contestant died on 10th of August, 1975. Under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, an application to bring on record his legal representatives should have been filed by the appellant within ninety days of his demise. The Advocate‑on‑Record for his legal representatives filed an application on 14‑12‑1982 stating that the deceased‑respondent had died as afore stated, but the appellant had taken no step to get his legal representatives substituted, and, accordingly, the appeal has abated and may be disposed of as such. A notice of this application was also given to the Advocate -on‑Record of the appellant, Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri. This was not the end of the matter. The office of this Court also reminded the Advocate‑on‑Record twice by notices dated 4‑1‑1983 and 23‑9‑1984 to take steps to get the legal representatives substituted. Lastly, the Advocate‑on‑Record of the appellant sent a registered letter, dated 17th of October, 1985, to the appellant himself and a copy of it to Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, counsel for the appellant, informing him of the consequences likely to ensure for not initmating the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased‑respondent who are to be impleaded in the appeal. But no steps were taken by the appellant to communicate to him the names of the legal representatives and their addresses. It was today when this application, which is numbered as C.M.P.No.23‑R of 1986, was listed for hearing in the Court that an application in reply was filed without giving out the names of the legal representatives, and praying that the C.M.P.No.23‑R‑86 be treated as an application for the substitution of legal representatives. This hardly satisfies the requirement and ought it be said that even at this stage no attempt was made to give out the names of the legal representatives or to show cause as to why steps were not taken to implead the legal representatives as from 14‑12‑1982 till today despite the fact that the appellant had notice of the demise of the deceased.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XV, Rr. 4 & 6--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XXII, R. 4(1)--Abatement--Death of respondent--Dismissal of appeal for non prosecution--Appeal not properly constituted--Appellant failing to bring on record legal representatives of deceased respondent despite notice- Respondent's legal representatives seeking disposal of appeal as having abated--No attempt made by appellant to give out . names of legal representatives or to explain his default--No justification to condone delay--Appeal being improperly constituted could not proceed against deceased-respondent and was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C J.‑‑Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the main contestant died on 10th of August, 1975. Under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, an application to bring on record his legal representatives should have been filed by the appellant within ninety days of his demise. The Advocate‑on‑Record for his legal representatives filed an application on 14‑12‑1982 stating that the deceased‑respondent had died as afore stated, but the appellant had taken no step to get his legal representatives substituted, and, accordingly, the appeal has abated and may be disposed of as such. A notice of this application was also given to the Advocate -on‑Record of the appellant, Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri. This was not the end of the matter. The office of this Court also reminded the Advocate‑on‑Record twice by notices dated 4‑1‑1983 and 23‑9‑1984 to take steps to get the legal representatives substituted. Lastly, the Advocate‑on‑Record of the appellant sent a registered letter, dated 17th of October, 1985, to the appellant himself and a copy of it to Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, counsel for the appellant, informing him of the consequences likely to ensure for not initmating the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased‑respondent who are to be impleaded in the appeal. But no steps were taken by the appellant to communicate to him the names of the legal representatives and their addresses. It was today when this application, which is numbered as C.M.P.No.23‑R of 1986, was listed for hearing in the Court that an application in reply was filed without giving out the names of the legal representatives, and praying that the C.M.P.No.23‑R‑86 be treated as an application for the substitution of legal representatives. This hardly satisfies the requirement and ought it be said that even at this stage no attempt was made to give out the names of the legal representatives or to show cause as to why steps were not taken to implead the legal representatives as from 14‑12‑1982 till today despite the fact that the appellant had notice of the demise of the deceased. Accordingly, we see no justification to condone the delay. As the appeal is improperly constituted, it cannot proceed against the deceased‑respondent with the result that it is dismissed for non-prosecution. M. I. Appeal dismissed.