1993 PLP 169 (CLC)
MUHAMAMD YASIN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AKRAM and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 169 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Azad J & K |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majeed Mallick J |
| Parties | MUHAMAMD YASIN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AKRAM and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 169 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 169 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Azad J & K bench comprising: Abdul Majeed Mallick J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 169 (CLC) (MUHAMAMD YASIN and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AKRAM and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Farid Khan for Appellants.
- Sardar Zahoor Hussain Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXII, R.4‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 177 & S. 5‑‑‑Legal representatives of deceased defendant ‑‑‑Impleading of ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Limitation to implead legal heirs of a deceased defendant/respondent was ninety days which commenced from the date of death of deceased defendant/respondent‑‑‑Plaintiffs explanation for condonation of delay of time‑barred application for impleading legal representatives being self contradictory, found no support from particulars relating to the cause of delay‑‑‑Order of abatement of suit was proper and valid in circumstances: 1987 CLC 1698; 1973 SCMR 286; PLD 1969 Lah. 242; PLD 1974 SC 331; PLD 1976 Lah. 1304; PLD 1968 SC 140;1972 SCMR 317;1980 SCMR 779 and PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 68 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑‑O.XXII, R.4‑‑‑Abatement of suit‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Plaintiffs making no application for setting aside of abatement but filing application for impleading legal representatives of deceased defendant ‑‑‑In absence of express prayer made in said application to set aside abatement of suit, there should have been some indication by implication, in the recitals to demonstrate intention of applicants that they also desired setting aside of abatement of suit‑‑‑In absence of such prayer or indication, Court could not treat application for impleading legal representatives as an application to set aside the abatement, especially when same had been filed beyond period of limitation. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Once limitation starts running against a party, onus would be on such party to explain delay of each day in order to avail condonation.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.XXII, R.4‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 177 & S. 5‑‑‑Legal representatives of deceased defendant ‑‑‑Impleading of ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Limitation to implead legal heirs of a deceased defendant/respondent was ninety days which commenced from the date of death of deceased defendant/respondent‑‑‑Plaintiffs explanation for condonation of delay of time‑barred application for impleading legal representatives being self contradictory, found no support from particulars relating to the cause of delay‑‑‑Order of abatement of suit was proper and valid in circumstances: 1987 CLC 1698; 1973 SCMR 286; PLD 1969 Lah. 242; PLD 1974 SC 331; PLD 1976 Lah. 1304; PLD 1968 SC 140;1972 SCMR 317;1980 SCMR 779 and PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 68 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ‑‑‑O.XXII, R.4‑‑‑Abatement of suit‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Plaintiffs making no application for setting aside of abatement but filing application for impleading legal representatives of deceased defendant ‑‑‑In absence of express prayer made in said application to set aside abatement of suit, there should have been some indication by implication, in the recitals to demonstrate intention of applicants that they also desired setting aside of abatement of suit‑‑‑In absence of such prayer or indication, Court could not treat application for impleading legal representatives as an application to set aside the abatement, especially when same had been filed beyond period of limitation. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Once limitation starts running against a party, onus would be on such party to explain delay of each day in order to avail condonation. Muhammad Farid Khan for Appellants. Sardar Zahoor Hussain Khan for Respondents.