| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3073 1971 SLD 3073 = 1971 PLD 82 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 56-D, 57-D, 58-D and 59-D of 1968,. decided on 31st August 1970.
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
A.K.Brohi, Senior Advccate Supreme Court (A. H. Mirza, Advocate with him) instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeals No. 59-D of 1968). A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (K. M. Subhan, Advocate with him) instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on Record for
Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos. 56-D and 58-D of 1968). A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (A. H. Mirza, Advocate with him) instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on, Record for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 57-D of 1968).
RespondentNo. 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 57-D of 1968):Ex parte. Asrarul Hossain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rafiqul Huq; Advocate with him) instructed by A. W. Mallik, Advocate on-Record for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 59-D of 1968).
Civil Appeals Nos. 56-D, 57-D, 58-D and 59-D of 1968,. decided on 31st August 1970.
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
A.K.Brohi, Senior Advccate Supreme Court (A. H. Mirza, Advocate with him) instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeals No. 59-D of 1968). A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (K. M. Subhan, Advocate with him) instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on Record for
Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos. 56-D and 58-D of 1968). A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (A. H. Mirza, Advocate with him) instructed by S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on, Record for
Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No. 57-D of 1968).
RespondentNo. 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 57-D of 1968):Ex parte. Asrarul Hossain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rafiqul Huq; Advocate with him) instructed by A. W. Mallik, Advocate on-Record for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 59-D of 1968).
THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN-Appellant
VERSUS
MAJOR Nawab Khawaja HASAN ASKARY AND OTHERS-Respondents Civil Appeal No. 59-D of 1968 Mlaulvi KHURRAM KHAN PANNI-Appellant versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. VII, r. 7
Law: East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section: 3(I), 43.
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan at Dacca, dated the 3rd December 1965, in First Appeals Nos. 11, 21, 2?_ and 61 of 1958). (a) Appeal (Civil)-Appeal against dead party-Cause-title can be amended by bringing legal representatives on record-Delay of 1208 days, however, in seeking correction of cause title without any satisfactory explanation-Appeal dismissed. It cannot be disputed that an appeal against a dead party can be amended by bringing his legal representatives on record. Except Sind and Upper Burma Courts all other High Courts in this sub-continent have taken this view. However, when the appellants were negligent in seeking correction of the cause title for a long period and no satisfactory explanation was given for condonation of the delay (of 1208 days) the appeal was held barred by time and dismissed. (b) East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIll of 1951)-A valid legislation. The Province of East Pakistan and another v. Md. Mehdi Ali Khan P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 387 and Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky v. The Province of East Pakistan and others P L D 1968 S C 185 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1903), O. VII, r. 7-Suit-- Rights of parties must be determined as on date of suit and not on basis of rights accruing after institution of suit-Party to suit or appeal cannot raise a new plea based on his own voluntary action after institution of suit-Notifications issued under S. 3(I), East Bengal .State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 challenged in suit as ultra vices-Defendant at appellate stage could not urge Court to take notice of a subsequent event viz. general notification issued under S. 43 of East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950-East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951), Ss. 3(I) & 43. The ordinary rule is that rights of the party must be deter mined as on the date of the suit and not on the basis of rights which accrued to them after the institution of the suit. The rent-receiving interest in the Wakf Estate of a number of persons were acquired by the Government by notification issued under section 3(1) of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy…