Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 330 1976 SLD 330 1976 SCMR 418
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1969, decision dated: 25th October 1973
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Sardar Kha Advocate-on-Record for Appellants D. M. Adwan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

Mst. HALIMAN AND 9 others

VS

MUHAMMAD DIN AND 4 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---- O. XXII. rr. 4 & 11-Abatement-Legal representatives of deceased defendant already on record, though in another capacity-No application necessary to implead such persona as legal representatives ­Suit not to abate by reasons of absence of such application.­[Abatement]. Wali and others v. Manak Ali and others P L D 1965 S C 651 and Abdullah Sahib v. Vaqeer Beevi Ammal and others A I R 1928 Mad. 1199 ref. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This appeal by special leave is against the order dated 5-4-1966 of a Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan in Regular Second Appeal No. 168 of 1966, arming the orders to the similar effect of the two Courts below. The material facts are that the land in dispute belonged to one Hassan who was governed by Custom in the matters of succession. He died sonless before the Punjab Mualim Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 came into force, leaving him surviving Mat. Umran who succeeded him on the usua widow's estate under Custom. On the death of Mst. Umran in 1959, that is to say, after the coming into force of the said Act, the land was mutated in favour of Muhammad Din and Muhammad Ali nephews (sons of a brother) of Mst. Umran and distant kindred collaterals of Hassan the last male holder, under Muslim Law to the exclusion of Ghulam Muhammad, a son of Mst. Rehmo, an alleged daughter of Hassan by his second wife Mst. Karam Bhari alias Kammo and certain others, who also claimed to be resi4uaries of Hassan. During the pendency of the suit, Muhammad Ali, one of the defendants and a nephew of Mst. Umran died, and a time-barred application was made under Order XXII, rule 4, C. P. C: for bringing his legal representatives on the record. The trial Court did not find any sufficient ground for condoning the delay and declared the suit to have abated toto. On appeal, the learned District Judge decided that the application for setting aside the abatement was within time. He therefore, accepted the appeal and remanded the case for fresh decision by the trial Court s n merits. A revision against the above order was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court who remitted the case for…
🔒
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