1968 SCMR 328 (PLP)
ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus BUDHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 328 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus BUDHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 328 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 328 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 328 (PLP) (ELAHI BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus BUDHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nazar Muhammad Mufti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Anwar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of condonation of delay in filing the petition for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XVI, r. 9-Appeal to Supreme Court-Application for impleading legal representatives of deceased respondent, filed beyond ninety days without any sufficient cause-Application under O. XVI, r. 9 dismissed and along with it app al as well.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The respondent in this case, Budha, died on the 12th March 1967. No application was made for bringing his legal representatives on record till the 24th of October 1967. This petition was clearly out of time and the question raised is whether there was sufficient cause within the meaning of Order XVI, rule 9 of the Rules of this Court for extention of the time for this application. It is represented by Mr. Nazar Mohammad Mufti, on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the petitioner was lying ill and he only sent his son six months later to his Counsel to find out about the case. In the first place there is no medical evidence available to support the allegation of illness of the petitioner. Secondly, if the sop could be sent 6 months later, it is not explained why he could not have been sent earlier Budha was the only respondent left in the case after the name of the second respondent, Balochu, was struck out at the instance of the petitioner-appellant himself. The result therefore, is that within the time allowed by law, the legal representatives of the sole deceased respondent have not been brought on record. Mr. Muhammad Anwar, on behalf of the respondent claims that the respondent's legal representatives have gained a valuable legal, right which should not be interfered with lightly. We see consider- able force in this contention. We, therefore, dismiss the petition for bringing the legal representatives of Budha on the record, as being out of time, with the result that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.