2018 PLP 390 (CLC)
ANEES VAYYANI — Plaintiff Versus Mst. ZARINA VAYANI and 6 others — Defendants
| Citation | 2018 PLP 390 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ANEES VAYYANI — Plaintiff Versus Mst. ZARINA VAYANI and 6 others — Defendants |
| Primary Law | Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 390 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 390 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 390 (CLC) (ANEES VAYYANI — Plaintiff Versus Mst. ZARINA VAYANI and 6 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 295 & 278
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.13 & S.114
Procedure in contentious cases
Nature of order under S.295, Succession Act, 1925
Conversion of proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 to a suit of administration under O.XX, R.13, C.P.C.
Scope
Orders passed in absence of legal heirs could not be treated as orders passed on "objections" in order to treat an application for letter for administration as contentious, which could only be converted into a suit if the objections filed were prima facie tenable and objectors were to be treated as defendants in terms of S.295, Succession Act, 1925
When there was neither "objections" nor "objectors" on record, order under O.XX, R.13, C.P.C. could not be passed.
Judgment & Decree
NAZAR AKBAR, J.
The Plaintiff has filed SMA on 08.10.2016 at his own without consulting other legal heirs of the deceased Haleema Vayani, who died on 07.11.2008. Not a single legal heir has joined the petitioner by filing a no objection affidavit. The petitioner in para-8 of his succession petition has filed list of litigations pending between the legal heirs. All three cases were filed by the legal heirs against each other after the death of Mst. Haleema Vayani. Learned counsel states that all the cases mentioned in para-8 have already been decided in his favour. Then he should have filed execution applications for the satisfaction of decrees in his favour. In a situation like the one faced by the petitioner he cannot seek "grant of succession certificates" in his favour even by civil suit. An "objection" raised by the office cannot be treated as an "objection" by other legal heirs. Orders passed in absence of the legal heirs cannot be treated as order passed on the "objections" to treat an SMA as contentious. However, due to lack of assistance certain orders have been passed without appearance of the legal heirs of deceased. SMA can be converted into suit only if the objections filed by the objector are found prima facie tenable and the said objectors are to be treated as Defendants in terms of Section 295 of the Succession Act, 1925. The objectors are to be treated as Defendants and in terms of Rule 413 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S) objections filed by the objectors are to be treated written statement. In the present suit there is neither any objector nor "objections" on record are before the Court and the Plaintiff claims an order under Order XX, Rule 13, C.P.C. may be passed. No preliminary decree can be passed in absence of the parties. The Defendants have neither been served with the notice/summons of this suit nor the Court has declared them ex parte. Even proper title of suit has not been filed by the Plaintiff. In the absence of written statement and/or any formal objection to the grant of SMA there is no concept of ex parte preliminary decree. The application is therefore, dismissed and learned counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to satisfy the Court how this suit is maintainable. KMZ/A-113/Sindh Application dismissed.