KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus REHMAT ALI

ORDER

Facts giving rise to this regular second appeal are that the respondent, Rehmat Ali, filed a suit against the appellant, Khushi Muhammad, for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The suit was decreed by a Civil Judge whereupon the appellant filed appeal before an Additional District Judge. His appeal was, however, dismissed. He has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.

2. Admittedly, Rehmat Ali is no longer alive. At the request of the appellant, his legal representatives have, however, since been brought on the record.

3. , It was pointed out by learned counsel for the legal representatives of Rehmat Ali, who have filed Civil Revision No.900/D of 1984 against the impugned judgment and decree, that this appeal was time‑barred because they were impleaded after running out of the period prescribed for filing the appeal. It was also disclosed by him that the appeal was instituted against a dead person inasmuch as Rehmat Ali had expired before the filing of the instant appeal against him.

4, It was not denied by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was dead when this appeal was preferred against him. It was, however, added by him that the appellant made petition for bringing his legal representatives on the record as soon as he came to know of his death.

5. According to learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent, Rehmat Ali had died during the pendency of the first appeal. It was also urged by him that if the appellant was not aware of his death earlier, his counsel did come to know of it when he (learned counsel for legal representatives of the respondent) stated before this Court on 313th June, 1996 that the respondent had died before filing of the present appeal.

6. Petition for bringing legal representatives of the respondent on the record, namely C.M. No.4495/C of 1987, was filed by the appellant on 5th October, 1987, after about 16 months of the aforementioned statement of learned counsel for his legal representatives. Admittedly, the appellant has not made any petition for condonation of delay in impleading legal representatives of the respondent. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the period for filing the appeal had expired long before the making of petition for bringing legal representatives of the respondent on the record. View expressed in Niamat Ullah Khan and 8 others v. Ghulam Sarwar and 14 others P L D 1979 Pesh. 31 was' that if an appeal is filed against a dead person but his legal representative are brought on the record within the period of limitation, the appeal A cannot be dismissed for having been instituted against a dead person. Since, in the instant case, legal representatives of the respondent were impleaded long after the expiration of the period of limitation, appeal before me deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

A. A. /K-92/L Appeal dismissed