Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This is a settlement matter in which leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole contesting respondent passed away, and his legal representatives issued a notice to the appellant to implead his heirs. The appellant's Advocate-on-Record failed to file the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days, subsequently filing it along with an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question before the court was whether the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record should be condoned. The court held that the grounds put forward for condonation of delay were unconvincing, and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation. The key principle laid down is that where an application to implead legal heirs of a deceased party is not filed within the statutory period and no sufficient or convincing grounds for condonation are shown, the application will be rejected and the appeal will stand abated.
- Whether delay in filing an application to implead legal heirs of a deceased respondent can be condoned without convincing grounds?
- What is the consequence of failing to implead legal heirs within the statutory period of 90 days?
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This is a settlement matter in which leave was granted by order dated 10- 10-1975.
2. Before us the learned counsel raised a preliminary objection namely that Muhammad Amin (respondent No. 3), the only contesting respondent had died on 19-10-1977. A notice was given by his legal representatives to the appellant requiring them to implead the heirs of the deceased as respon--dents in his place. The notice was received by the Advocate-on-Record for the appellant but he did not do the needful and failed to make the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days. Subsequently, however, he filed an application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent as respondents on 24-5-1978 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application.
3. We have gone through the said application and heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents referred us to Sardar Muhammad Tufail v. C. S. C. And others (1970 SCMR 72), to urge that delay should not be condoned in such a case.
Having considered this question we feel that the grounds for condo--nation of delay put forward by the appellant's counsel are not convincing. We, therefore, reject the application with the result that the appeal is dismissed as having abated.