| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3254 = 1975 SLD 3254 = 1976 PLD 580 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 343 of 1972, decided on 11th January 1974.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Labhu Ram and others v. Ram Partap and others A I R 1944 Lab. 76 ; Qadm Khan arid another v. Mst. Malkai and others P L D 1963 Pesb. 58 ; National Bank of Pakistan v. Pak Enterprisers and others P L D 1968 Kar. 47 ; Province of East Pakistan v. Hasan Askary P L D 1971 S C 82 ; Hall Mandal and another v. Khirode Bala Debea P L D 1961 Dacca 332 ; Sarshar Ali v. Roberts Cotton Association Ltd and another P L D 1963 S C 244 Muhammad Jamil v. The Chairman, Industrial Court, West Pakistan and another Pt .D 1964 S C 559; Messrs S. M. Yusuf & Bros. v. Mirza Muhammad Mehdi Pooya and another P L D 1965 S C 15 and V. P. R. V. Chackalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache and others A I R 1927 P C 252 ref.
Regular Second Appeal No. 343 of 1972, decided on 11th January 1974.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Labhu Ram and others v. Ram Partap and others A I R 1944 Lab. 76 ; Qadm Khan arid another v. Mst. Malkai and others P L D 1963 Pesb. 58 ; National Bank of Pakistan v. Pak Enterprisers and others P L D 1968 Kar. 47 ; Province of East Pakistan v. Hasan Askary P L D 1971 S C 82 ; Hall Mandal and another v. Khirode Bala Debea P L D 1961 Dacca 332 ; Sarshar Ali v. Roberts Cotton Association Ltd and another P L D 1963 S C 244 Muhammad Jamil v. The Chairman, Industrial Court, West Pakistan and another Pt .D 1964 S C 559; Messrs S. M. Yusuf & Bros. v. Mirza Muhammad Mehdi Pooya and another P L D 1965 S C 15 and V. P. R. V. Chackalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache and others A I R 1927 P C 252 ref.
MEHTAB BEG AND 2 others-Appellants
VERSUS
GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. XLI. r. 20, r. 10, 107, 151
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI. r. 20 read with O. I, r. 10 and Ss. 107 & 151-Provisions of O. XLI, r. 20 to be exercised very cautiously-Person in whose favour Court has passed decree against which appeal not filed within period of limitation-Provisions of O. XLI, r. 20 cannot be exercised to disturb a substantive right of valuable kind-M filing suit against C and others-Suit dismissed-Appeal by M-C dying pending appeal and his legal representative brought on record- Appeal too dismissed-Second appeal, thereafter, filed by M but in the second appeal legal representative of C not impleaded as party --Application under O. XLI, r. 20 read with O. 1, r. 10 and Ss. 107 & 151, C. P. C. moved (after expiry of period of limitation) to implead legal heir of C-Application whether competent. Held : When parties are added by the Court after the institution of a suit under Order I, rule 10(2), section 22, Limitation Act, provides that the date when they are added is to be deemed to be the date of the institution of the suit so far as they are concerned for purposes of limitation and the rights which they may have acquired under the Limitation Act are, therefore, sufficiently safeguarded. The addition of a respondent whom the appellant has not made a party to the appeal is expressly dealt with in Order XLI, rule 20. That rule empowers the Court to make such party a respondent when it appears to the Court that be is interested in the result of the appeal. No doubt, it is a question for the Court in its discretion to determine in each case whether or not it will make an order for the addition of a party as contemplated by the rule, such power is not to be exercised on the application of a party. It is a well established rule of law that this provision should be exer cised very cautiously because a person in whose favour the lower Court has passed a decree against which an appeal is not filed within period of limitation has a substantive right of a valuable kind which should not be lightly treated. …