P L D 1975 Lahore 1195 (PLP)
RASHID AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1975 Lahore 1195 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, C. J. |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Lahore 1195 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Lahore 1195 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, C. J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Lahore 1195 (PLP) (RASHID AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing t 13th March 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3 Legal Representatives, impleading of‑Provisions of O. XXII, C. P. C.‑Not applicable to cases of evictions of tenants under Ordinance‑Proceedings under S. 13 of Ordinance‑Do not abate on death of petitioner or respondent‑Rent Controller's order dismissing ejectment petition on petitioner's death, held, not warranted by law. The Rent Controller is an administrative Tribunal and not a Court. The provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure are thus not applicable and that being so the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller do not abate on the death of either the petitioner or the respondent. There is no provision in the Rent Restriction Ordinance to say that in the event of the death of the petitioner the petition shall abate or that it is liable to be dismissed. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner had died was, therefore, not warranted by law. Khadim Mohyuddln v. Rehmat Ali P L D 1965 S C 459 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3 Procedure‑Petition under O. XXII to implead legal representatives though not competent yet petition under S. 13 of Ordinance neither abating nor liable to dismissal on death of petitioner, principles of O. XXII, held, can be invoked‑Adoption of any procedure, unless expressly prohibited‑Permissible to Rent Controller for decision of matter before him. The Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and, therefore, application under Order XXII to implead the legal representatives is not competent. Since, however, the petition for ejectment does not abate, nor can it be dismissed on the death of a party the principles of Order XXII can be invoked because the Rent Controller, with a view to deciding the matter before him, can adopt any procedure unless it is prohibited. (c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3 Legal representatives, impleading of‑Application for ejectment of tenant liable to dismissal in case of applicants' death and failure of legal representatives to appear‑Legal representatives, or any one on their behalf, if appearing, Court cannot refuse to substitute for deceased. If Order XXII, C. P. C. is not applicable a suit or a petition in which the right to sue survives cannot be dismissed because the right, by operation of law, becomes vested in the legal representatives. If the legal representatives do not appear the petition can be dismissed for non‑prosecution. However, if the legal representatives or anyone of them appears, the Court cannot refuse to substitute them for the deceased. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. Legal representatives, impleading of‑Advocate, powers and responsi bilities of‑Petitioner dying during pendency of proceedings for ejectment of tenant‑Petitioner's Advocate entering into contract to conduct proceedings‑May be obliged, according to terms of power of attorney, to conduct case to conclusion‑Contract between counsel and client in cases where right to sue survives‑Does not come to end on death of party‑Deceased party's Advocate in such situation‑Has contractual rights against, and obligations towards, legal representa tives‑Legal representatives even though not expressly impleaded-- Nevertheless deemed in law to be parties‑Decision to be either in their favour or against them but not against dead person. In a case where the petitioner is represented by an Advocate the position becomes all the more simple. An Advocate enters into a contract with the suitor to conduct the proceedings. He may be obliged, according to the terms of the power of attorney, to conduct the case till it concludes. On the death of a party the contract between the counsel and a client in such a case and where the right to sue survives does not come to an end. He, in such a situation, has the contractual rights against and the obligations towards the Legal Representatives. Thus, even if the Legal Representatives are not expressly impleaded they shall be deemed in law to be the parties and the decision in the case will be in their favour or against them and not against a dead person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3 Legal representatives, impleading of‑Application for ejectment of tenant liable to dismissal in case of applicants' death and failure of legal representatives to appear‑Legal representatives, or any one on their behalf, if appearing, Court cannot refuse to substitute for deceased. If Order XXII, C. P. C. is not applicable a suit or a petition in which the right to sue survives cannot be dismissed because the right, by operation of law, becomes vested in the legal representatives. If the legal representatives do not appear the petition can be dismissed for non‑prosecution. However, if the legal representatives or anyone of them appears, the Court cannot refuse to substitute them for the deceased. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. Legal representatives, impleading of‑Advocate, powers and responsi bilities of‑Petitioner dying during pendency of proceedings for ejectment of tenant‑Petitioner's Advocate entering into contract to conduct proceedings‑May be obliged, according to terms of power of attorney, to conduct case to conclusion‑Contract between counsel and client in cases where right to sue survives‑Does not come to end on death of party‑Deceased party's Advocate in such situation‑Has contractual rights against, and obligations towards, legal representa tives‑Legal representatives even though not expressly impleaded-- Nevertheless deemed in law to be parties‑Decision to be either in their favour or against them but not against dead person. In a case where the petitioner is represented by an Advocate the position becomes all the more simple. An Advocate enters into a contract with the suitor to conduct the proceedings. He may be obliged, according to the terms of the power of attorney, to conduct the case till it concludes. On the death of a party the contract between the counsel and a client in such a case and where the right to sue survives does not come to an end. He, in such a situation, has the contractual rights against and the obligations towards the Legal Representatives. Thus, even if the Legal Representatives are not expressly impleaded they shall be deemed in law to be the parties and the decision in the case will be in their favour or against them and not against a dead person. Muhammad Akhtar for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing t 13th March 1975. Chanan Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants filed an application for ejectment against the respondent. On his death the appellants applied to be impleaded as legal representatives. The Rent Controller rejected the application by observing that the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable and, therefore, the provisions of Order XXII, rule 3, C. P. C. could not be pressed into service. He also dismissed the application for ejectment. The appellants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal. This is a second appeal against that order.
2. The Rent Controller is an administrative Tribunal and not a Court as held in Khadim Mohyuddin v. Rehmat Ali (PLD1965SC459). The Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance except those under sections 15 (4) and 16 where certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been expressly made applicable. The provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure are thus not applicable and that being so the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller do not abate on the death of either the petitioner or the respondent. There is no` provision in the Rent Restriction Ordinance to say that in the event of the death of the petitioner the petition shall abate or that it is liable to be dismissed. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner had died was, therefore, not warranted by law. 3. the next question which arises for determination is that if the petition could not be dismissed, could it proceed without impleading the legal representatives? The Civil Procedure Code is not applicable and, therefore, application under Order XXII to implead the legal representatives is not competent. Since, however, the petition for ejectment does not abate, nor can it be dismissed on the death of a party the principles of Order XXII can be invoked because the Rent Controller, with a view to deciding the matter before him, can adopt any procedure unless it is prohibited.
4. There is yet another aspect of the case. If Order XXII, C. P. C. is not applicable a suit or a petition in which the right to sue survives cannot be dismissed because the right, by operation of law, becomes vested in the legal representatives. If the legal representatives do not appear the petition can be dismissed for non‑prosecution. However, if the legal representative or anyone of them appears, the Court cannot refuse to substitute them for the deceased. In a case where the petitioner is represented by an Advocate the position becomes all the more simple. An Advocate enters into a contract with the suiter to conduct the proceedings. He may be obliged, according to the terms of the power of attorney, to conduct the case till it concludes. On the death of a party the contract between the counsel and a client in such a case and where the right to sue survives does not come to an end. He, in such a situation, has the contractual rights and the obligations towards the legal representatives. Thus, even if the legal representatives are not expressly impleaded they shall be deemed in law to be the parties and the decision in the case will be in their favour or against them and not against a dead person. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, dismissing the application and refusing to implead the legal representatives are not valid. They are set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller for decision on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. S. A. H Appeal allowed. Case remanded.