| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 4000 1987 SLD 4000 = 1987 MLD 2867 |
NAWAB alias NABU--Appellant
VERSUS
WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE and others--Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (1908)
Section: O.XXII, R.4 & S.100
a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--
---O.XXII, R.4 & S.100--Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss.19-A & 24--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & Art.176--Appellant who claimed to be an occupancy tenant under the Province brought suit for declaration that no order of resumption was passed and that if there was any, he was not afforded opportunity envisaged by S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, of showing cause against it--Appeal and suit having been dismissed, appellant brought second appeal but died during pendency of second appeal--Widow of appellant obtained death certificate and handed it over to his counsel for bringing legal heirs on record but said counsel filed necessary application to implead widow and four minor sons of deceased leaving his two daughters and did not straight away ask for bringing them on record as legal representatives of deceased--Counsel for appellant as such misdirected himself in making them as parties through formal joinder- -Occupancy tenancy was an inheritable right and right to sue survived in favour of legal representative of deceased--Application for joinder was filed sixty days beyond period of limitation and no explanation for delay was offered till after twenty years when application for condonation of delay was made after twenty years--Held, appellant's counsel did not show necessary vigilance and he was bound by his successive failures as firstly he failed to file a proper application; secondly moved same beyond period of limitation; thirdly he did not explain delay; fourthly he made no application for condonation of delay and fifthly he asked for condonation after twenty years--Such events in trial would not justify indulgence--Counsel showed ignorance of law which reason was not acceptable--Counsel's asking for condonation of delay after twenty years without explaining each day's delay, was equally "t unavailing--Both applications, for joinder of legal representatives as well as for condoning delay dismissed and second appeal abated in circumstances.