RAHMAT ALI Versus ABDULLAH
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a civil matter where the two respondents were found to have died well before the hearing, one on 2-8-1983 and the other on 28-8-1986. The core legal question was whether the appellant's delay in filing an application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondents could be condoned based on the explanation that the parties resided in different villages. The court held that the explanation was unacceptable because the record showed all parties actually resided in the same village, and consequently rejected the application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that an application for bringing legal representatives on record filed out of time cannot be condoned on factually incorrect grounds regarding the parties' residence, resulting in the dismissal of the improperly constituted appeal.
- Whether delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives can be condoned on the ground of different residences when the record shows otherwise?
- What is the effect on an appeal when applications to implead legal representatives of deceased respondents are time-barred and rejected?
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑There are only two respondents in this appeal. They are both dead. One died on 28‑8‑1986 and the other expired on 2‑8‑1983. The application for impleading their legal representatives has been made only today. The application is clearly out of time. The explanation offered for the delay is that the parties resided in different villages and for that reason the appellant did not come to know of the deaths of the respondents earlier. This explanation is clearly unacceptable, for, from the addresses of the parties provided by the appellant himself it is apparent that they all resided in the same village. We accordingly reject the application for condonation of the delay. As the appeal is not properly constituted, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. M.I./R‑53/S Appeal dismissed.