MUKHI CHATROMAL and another vs KHUBCHAND and others
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a High Court appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners sought restoration of their appeal, which was conditionally allowed upon depositing collected rent with the Nazir of the High Court within a specified period, failing which the applications stood dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners complied with the conditional restoration order and whether a petition filed against deceased persons is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to deposit the required rent amount, the High Court's discretion was fair and reasonable, and further noted that the petition was a nullity in law as it was filed against dead persons. The petition was accordingly dismissed with directions to ensure compliance with the High Court's orders.
- Whether an appellate court's conditional order for the restoration of an appeal is justified when the appellant fails to deposit the required rent amount?
- Is a petition filed against dead persons considered a nullity in law?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- High Court Appeal No,135 of 1986 preferred by the petitioners against judgment of a learned Single Judge rejecting the plaint in Suit No,188 of 1982 under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh on 15-12-2000. Through C.M.As.
Nos.457 and 458 of 2001, he made a prayer for restoration of his appeal, which was allowed, subject to the condition that he shall deposit the total amount of rent collected from various tenants in all 120 in number from December, 2000 onwards till the date of order with the Nazir of the High Court within a period of 60 days, failing which applications of restoration shall be deemed to have been dismissed. By the same order Nazir of the High Court was appointed as Commissioner to collect the rent disclosed in the statement dated 1-11-2002 with immediate effect.
2. We have heard the petitioner No,1 in person as well as Mr. Ali Akbar, learned Advocate-on-Record for the . Petitioners at quite some length. Learned counsel was asked whether the petitioners have complied with the directive of the High Court, to which he fairly conceded that amount of rent had not been deposited as directed. Since the petitioners have not cared to comply with the condition stipulated in the order for re-admission of the appeal, we find no good ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court, which is neither unfair nor unreasonable.
3. Even otherwise, this petition is filed against dead persons, which is nullity in law, as according to petitioner-Mukhi Chatromal except respondent No,7 all other respondents are dead long back.
4. While dismissing this petition, we would direct the Nazir and the Registrar of the High Court to ensure compliance of the High Court order, which appears to have been completely flouted. Order accordingly. Compliance be reported within 60 days positively.