RUQIA BIBI AND 5 OTHERS vs JALAL DIN AND 8 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, which refused to set aside the abatement of an appeal following the death of the original appellant, Haji Abdul Ghafoor. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone a delay of over one year in filing an application to bring legal representatives on record, despite the petitioners' claim that they were unaware of the pending appeal due to the alleged negligence of a special attorney. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The Court held that the petitioners' claim of ignorance regarding the pending appeal was implausible, characterizing the failure to pursue the litigation as inexplicable negligence and carelessness. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no valid ground to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to set aside the abatement, thereby dismissing the petition.
- Whether the death of a principal terminates the authority of a special attorney to pursue an appeal?
- Does the failure of legal representatives to bring themselves on record within the prescribed limitation period warrant the setting aside of an abatement?
- Can a court refuse to condone a significant delay in filing an application for impleadment if the applicants fail to provide sufficient cause for their ignorance of the proceedings?
- Order XXII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-Haji Abdul Ghafoor, the predecessor of the petitioners, had filed a pre-emption suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, which was dismissed, An appeal was preferred in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, through Abdul Hamid, a special attorney.
2. Haji Abdul Ghafoor was murdered on the 4th of July 1963, and as his legal representatives were not brought on record within time, the appeal resulted in abatement. An application was moved by the present petitioners under Order XXI1, rule 9 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the 1st of October 1964, a year and three months after the murder of Abdul Ghafoor. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay was filed along with the application. The learned Judges of a Division Bench of the High Court have refused to set aside the abatement, and have dismissed the application and the appeal on the ground that no sufficient cause was disclosed to condone the delay of 1 --years that has occurred in filing of the application for setting aside the abatement, and for impleadment of the legal representatives of Abdul Ghafoor. According to their view, it was difficult to believe that the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant did not know about the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners alleged that as the special attorney was ill-disposed towards them, he did not inform them about the pendency of the appeal until a day before they moved their application for setting aside the abatement. They have further held that it was the duty of Abdul Hamid, the special attorney, after the death of the appellant, to keep the proceedings alive before the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Learned Judges in the High Court were wrongly influenced by the conduct of Abdul Hamid, who ceased to be the attorney after the murder of Abdul Ghafoor, his principal. That may be so, but it is difficult to disagree with the High Court that the petitioners, all of whom except one are majors, were completely ignorant of the appeal filed by Abdul Ghafoor in the High Court. Nor is it easy to believe that the special attorney did not inform them or the learned counsel, who was engaged in the case, about the murder of Haji Abdul Ghafoor when it took place.
3. It seems to be a case of inexplicable negligence and carelessness in not pursuing the appeal.
4. On the facts as disclosed, it is difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court has not properly exercised its discretion in refusing to set aside the abatement. As no valid ground is made out for our interference, we would dismiss this petition.