Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 98 1978 SLD 98 1978 SCMR 44
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal no. 26 of 1975, decision dated: 17th October 1977.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, DORAB PATEL AND GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, JJ
Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2

CHINAR GUL

VS

CANTONMENT BOARD OF PESHAWAR THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER PESHAWAR CANTT. AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXII, rr. 3 & 11 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. I, r. 5 &. O. XVI, rr. 7 & 9 Aoatemcant of appeal Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Not applicable to proceedings in Supreme Court Supreme Court may, however, on application by any interest¬ed person within 90 days grant a certificate showing name of a person to be substituted in place of party on record Supreme Court nevertheless empowered to extend time for sufficient cause Legal represen¬tatives of deceased altogether failing to tender any explanation for not making application within 90 days of party's death by apprising their Advocate on Record about death, extension of time refused. [Supreme Court Abatement of appeal]. ORDER MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J. On the 20th of June 1973, this Court allowed the necessary leave to appeal to Chinar Gul appellant from the judgment and decree passed by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar, reversing the decision by the trial Court and dismissed his suit with costs throughout. However, during the pendency of this appeal in this Court the appellant died on the 25th of October 1976 but no application was made within time to bring his legal representatives on the record. On the 28th of April 1977 the learned Advocate on Record brought this fact also to the notice of the Court. It was only on the 1st of June 1977, that the learned Advocate on Record of tae deceased appellant moved an application on behalf of his legal representatives to be brought on the record. It was also accompanied by a separate application for the condonation of the delay in this behalf. But before us the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed these two applications and vehemently contended that the appeal bad already abated and should be dismissed as such. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we find that allegations in the two applications do not disclose any sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay in applying to this Court for substituting the representatives of the deceased appellant on the record. All that has been alleged is that the intimation about the death of Chinar Gul appellant was given…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492