1987 PLP 812 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 1987 PLP 812 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 812 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 812 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 812 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Kh. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated4‑5‑1981 in F.A.O. No. 130 of 1977) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, Rr. 9 a 10‑ Petition against a dead man competency of‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against deceased a person Legal representatives though brought on record in High Court, not impleaded‑‑Counsel failing to offer any explanation for filing petition against a dead man‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, Rr. 9 a 10‑ Petition against a dead man competency of‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against deceased a person Legal representatives though brought on record in High Court, not impleaded‑‑Counsel failing to offer any explanation for filing petition against a dead man‑‑Petition dismissed. Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Kh. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑The petitioners filed a suit for pre‑emption. Their plaint was rejected for the reason that despite opportunities being given to them they had failed to make up deficiency in the court‑fee. They preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal, setaside the order of rejection of plaint and remanded the suit to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The respondent, Muhammad Khan, filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of remand. During the pendency of the appeal he died. His legal representatives were duly brought on the record. By an order, dated 4‑5‑1981 a learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the appeal and restored the order of the trial Court. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. On behalf of the legal representatives of Muhammad Khan a, preliminary objection has been raised to the competency of this petition. It is stated that this petition has been filed against Muhammad Khan alone without impleading them even though he was duly substituted by them in the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no explanation whatsoever for filing this petition against a dead man. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./M‑56/S Petition dismissed.