Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3036 = 1975 SLD 3036 = 1975 PLD 79
Lahore High Court
Civil Miscellaneous No. 2023/C of 1974/Regular Second Appeal No. 114 of 1963.
Presented By: Zaki-ud-Din Pal, J
Sardar Noor Hussain v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. P L D 1973 Lah. 809 distinguished. Ghulam Haider v. Mst. Raj Bhari and 4 others P L D 1973 Lah. 372 and Nabi Ahmad and another v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan Lahore P L D 1969 S C 599 ref. Jahangir A. Jhoja for Appellants. Muhammad Naazar Khan for
Respondent No. 1.

Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

ABDUL QADIR AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 0. XXII, rr. 3, 4, 9

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) 0. XXII, rr. 3, 4 & 9 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)]-Effect of amendments introduced-Not filing application forbringing legal representatives on record within period prescribed in Art. 177, Limitation Act (IX of 1908;-Effect as provided previously in r. 4, O. XXII, C. P. C. has now been nullified by amended rule. The argument that since Article 177 of the Limitation Act has not been amended, therefore, keeping in view the provision as contained therein if necessary application is not filed within a period of 90 days for bringing on record the legal representatives of a deceased party to suit, the suit or appeal, will abate, has no substance, so far as the effect of amended rules 4 and 9 of Order XXII, C. P. C. (as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972) and Art. 1,'4 of the Limitation Act is concerned. What is required by Art. 177 is that such application should be filed within a period of 90 days. The question .is, as to what is the effect of not filing such application within that time. The effect as provided previously in rule 4 of Order XXII has now been nullified by the amended rule, which provides that even in the absence of any application having been moved for impleading the legal representatives within the prescribed time, order or judgment, as the case may be, may be pro nounced in the suit or appeal and it will have the same force and effect as if it had been made or pronounced before the death took place. It is also significant to notice that the word `abatement' has been eliminated in amended rule 9 as well as in amended Art. 171. According to the old law an application was to be made under rule 9 for setting aside the abatement whereas under the amended law an application by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff .or defendant, as the case may be, has to be made for setting aside any order made or judgment pronounced in the absence of a party. Similarly in .amended Art. 171 for the words "for an order to set aside an abatement" the words "by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant for setting aside an order or judgment made or…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register