PROVINCE OF SIND Versus ARSALA KHAN
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a preliminary objection regarding the abatement of an appeal due to the failure to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record within the prescribed limitation period. The appellant, Seth Ahmad Ali, died on March 3, 1972, but an application to substitute his legal representatives was not filed until February 9, 1976, nearly four years later. Despite multiple notices issued by the Court Registry between 1974 and 1976, no action was taken by the counsel or the legal representatives. The Court examined the application for condonation of delay, which cited family ailments and financial difficulties as reasons for the delay. The Court held that the explanation provided was vague, unsupported by medical evidence, and insufficient to justify the gross delay of 1,348 days. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this technical ground, affirming the principle that unexplained, inordinate delay in substituting legal representatives warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
- Does a delay of nearly four years in bringing legal representatives on record warrant the dismissal of an appeal?
- Is a vague assertion of family illness, unsupported by medical evidence, sufficient grounds to condone a significant delay in legal proceedings?
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J. ‑This appeal must fail on the prevalence of a preliminary objection. It is not disputed that Seth Ahmad Ali appellant herein died on 3‑3‑1972 and the application for bringing on record his legal representatives as not filed till 9‑2‑1976 almost four years after his death. It appears that having learnt about the death of the appellant, his learned counsel Malik Amjad Hussain informed the Registry by his applications dated 25‑12‑1974 that lie was trying to contact the A. O. R to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant and yet nothing tangible appears to have been done till the Registry was constrained to issue a notice on 14‑7‑1975 which went unheeded. Notice was then repeated on 3‑9‑1975 and was followed by yet another notice issued on 23‑10‑1975, which too failed to elicit response. Finally on 30‑1‑1976, a notice was issued to the A. O. R. to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. It was then that for the first time an application was moved on 9‑2‑1976 to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.
2. Having heard the learned counsel as also having perused the application for condonation of delay submitted by him, we are trot convinced that th6 explanation offered makes out a good cause for condonation of the gross delay of almost four years. Except vague assertions about the almost four years. Except vague assertions about the ailment of the members of the family of the deceased appellant unsupported by medical certificates and their straitened circumstances, no satisfactory explanation of, the delay of 1348 days is forthcoming. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on that technical ground, with no order as to costs.
3. Appeal dismissed.