1983 PLP 112 (SCMR)
Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM-Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- O. XXII, r. 4-Heirs of deceased, impleading of-Notice given to Advocate on Record to implead heirs of deceased as respondents but needful not done and requisite application not made within statutory period of 90 days-Subsequent application filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, held, not based on convincing grounds hence application dismissed resulting in abatement of appeal.-Abate ment. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM-Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- O. XXII, r. 4-Heirs of deceased, impleading of-Notice given to Advocate on Record to implead heirs of deceased as respondents but needful not done and requisite application not made within statutory period of 90 days-Subsequent application filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, held, not based on convincing grounds hence application dismissed resulting in abatement of appeal.-Abate ment. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 112 (SCMR) (Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM-Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed lnayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing : 5tb May, 1982.
- ‑‑ O. XXII, r. 4‑Heirs of deceased, impleading of‑Notice given to Advocate on Record to implead heirs of deceased as respondents but needful not done and requisite application not made within statutory period of 90 days‑Subsequent application filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, held, not based on convincing grounds hence application dismissed resulting in abatement of appeal.‑[Abate ment].
- Sh. Abdul Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed lnayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.
- 2. Before us the learned counsel raised a preliminary objection namely that Muhammad Amin (respondent No. 3), the only contesting respondent had died on 19‑10‑1977. A notice was given by his legal representatives to the appellant requiring them to implead the heirs of the deceased as respon dents in his place. The notice was received by the Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant but he did not do the needful and failed to make the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days. Subsequently, however, he filed an application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent as respondents on 24‑5‑1978 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 9-5-1975 passed in Writ Petition No. 247/R/74). -- O. XXII, r. 4-Heirs of deceased, impleading of-Notice given to Advocate on Record to implead heirs of deceased as respondents but needful not done and requisite application not made within statutory period of 90 days-Subsequent application filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, held, not based on convincing grounds hence application dismissed resulting in abatement of appeal.-[Abate ment]. Respondents Nos. 1 and '2 : Ex Darte.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This is a settlement matter in which leave was granted by order dated 10‑10‑1975.
2. Before us the learned counsel raised a preliminary objection namely that Muhammad Amin (respondent No. 3), the only contesting respondent had died on 19‑10‑1977. A notice was given by his legal representatives to the appellant requiring them to implead the heirs of the deceased as respon dents in his place. The notice was received by the Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant but he did not do the needful and failed to make the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days. Subsequently, however, he filed an application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent as respondents on 24‑5‑1978 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application.
3. We have gone through the said application and heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents referred us to Sardar Muhammad Tufail v. C. S. C. and others (1970 S C M R 72), to urge that delay should not be condoned in such a case. Having considered this question we feel that the grounds for condo nation of delay put forward by the appellant's counsel are not convincing. We, therefore, reject the application with the result that the appeal is dismissed as having abated. Appeal dismissed.