Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: 4,2,3,4, 6,11, 12,26,13

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 176,177

Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Section: 3,4

 (1) The relationship between an advocate and his client is of principal and agent (2) The authority of advocate ceases on death of client (3) It is the professional duty of advocate to intimate the Court forthwith (4) Concealment of death is against the professional etiquettes (5) Advocate cannot continue without proper authorization of legal representatives of the deceased (6) If the explanation of advocate is found unreasonable, the Court may refer the matter to the concerned Bar Council to initiate misconduct proceedings. Summary  The Supreme Court allowed these civil petitions, converting them into appeals, set aside the Sindh High Court’s consolidated order of 26.05.2025 and remanded the matter. The High Court had permitted a deceased litigant (Respondent No.1 / Petitioner in the High Court) to be impleaded in pending rent-ejectment proceedings and ordered the Rent Controller to allow him to file written statements; the Supreme Court found the litigant had died on 04.11.2024, that his advocate should have informed the Court, and that the vakalatnama terminated on death. The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of advocates to notify courts of a client’s death, the purpose of impleading legal heirs under Order XXII CPC, and the procedural protections for heirs; it directed that the legal heirs may apply to be impleaded in the High Court and the High Court must decide the petitions afresh with opportunity of hearing. Core points High Court’s consolidated order dated 26.05.2025 allowed constitutional petitions and remanded ejectment suits to the Rent Controller, directing impleadment of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 (Israr-ulEbad) had died on 04.11.2024; his death was not intimated to the High Court. Advocate continued to appear despite the vakalatnama terminating upon the client’s death; counsel failed in the professional duty to inform the Court. Supreme Court held that an advocate’s authority ends on client’s death and suppression of death may attract professional misconduct consequences. Order XXII CPC requires impleadment/substitution of legal heirs so rights and liabilities survive and parties receive fair…