Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2335 2017 SLD 2335 2017 MLD 851
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 73 of 2012 C.M.As. Nos. 14907 of 2014 and 11730 of 2011, decision Dated: 7-11-2016. Hearing Date : 7-11-2011.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Mian Mushtaq Ahmed for Plaintiff. Agha Zafar for Defendants Nos.4 and 5.

MST. SAKINA KHATOON AND 6 OTHERS

VS

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 5 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXII, R. 1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Death of a party---Application for abatement of suit---Scope---Defendant had already been arrayed through his legal heirs when suit was filed---Plaintiff had claimed that defendants had misused power of attorney and sold the suit property after obtaining sale consideration---Suit would not abate merely that defendant had died as right to sue with regard to suit property and alleged conduct of said defendant still survived---Application for abatement of suit was dismissed in circumstances. Ghazanfer Ally Effendi and 3 others v. Arif Effendi through L.Rs. and others 2009 CLC 413; Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Habib and Co. and others PLD 1976 Kar. 755 and M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira and others AIR 1988 SC 506 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE:---.--- This is an application filed on behalf of the defendants Nos.4 and 5 wherein, it has been prayed to pass an order for abatement of Suit against defendants Nos.4 and 5 and their legal heirs in terms of Order XXII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Learned Counsel for defendants submits that defendant No. 5 died on 8.10.2012 prior to institution of this Suit, whereas, defendant No. 4 died on 23.8.2013 during pendency of this Suit. Per learned Counsel the right to sue defendants Nos.4 and 5 does not survive anymore as instant Suit is for claiming rights in rem against the suit properties and so also in respect of the personal action of defendants Nos.4 and 5; hence instant application. Learned Counsel submits that the plaintiff's claim is that defendant's Nos.4 and 5 allegedly acted in excess of the authority conferred upon them through Power of Attorney and such authority was personal, therefore, the Suit must abate as both the defendants have since expired. On the other hand, learned Counsel for plaintiff submits that the property in question has been sold by defendants Nos.4 and 5 on the basis of a power of attorney to defendants Nos.1 and 2, whereas, the said power of attorney stood revoked on expiry of one of the executants and therefore, defendants Nos.4 and 5 after…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492