Dr. GHULAM BHEEK And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the primary respondent passed away on August 10, 1975. The core legal question was whether the appeal could proceed despite the appellant's failure to bring the deceased respondent's legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period, and whether the delay in doing so should be condoned. The Court observed that under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, the appellant was required to file an application for substitution within ninety days of the death. Despite multiple notices from the Court office and the appellant's own counsel, the appellant failed to provide the names and addresses of the legal representatives for years. Even when the matter was finally heard, the appellant failed to provide the necessary details or show sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to condone the delay, and as the appeal was improperly constituted, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- What is the consequence of failing to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within the time prescribed by the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1956?
- Can an appeal proceed if the appellant fails to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased respondent despite receiving multiple notices from the Court?
- Is the Court justified in refusing to condone a delay in substituting legal representatives when the appellant has been aware of the death for several years?
- Order XV Rule 7, Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1956
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C J.--Respondent No. 4 in this appeal who was the main contestant died on 10th of August, 1975. Under Order XV, Rule 7 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, 1956, an application to bring on record his legal representatives should have been filed by the appellant within ninety days of his demise. The Advocate-on-Record for his legal representatives filed an application on 14-12-1982 stating that the deceased-respondent had died as afore stated, but the appellant had taken no step to get his legal representatives substituted, and, accordingly, the appeal has abated and may be disposed of as such. A notice of this application was also given to the Advocate---on-Record of the appellant, Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri. This was not the end of the matter. The office of this Court also reminded the Advocate-on-Record twice by notices dated 4-1-1983 and 23-9-1984 to take steps to get the legal representatives substituted. Lastly, the Advocate-on-Record of the appellant sent a registered letter, dated 17th of October, 1985, to the appellant himself and a copy of it to Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, counsel for the appellant, informing him of the consequences likely to ensure for not initmating the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent who are to be impleaded in the appeal. But no steps were taken by the appellant to communicate to him the names of the legal representatives and their addresses. It was today when this application, which is numbered as C.M.P.No.23-R of 1986, was listed for hearing in the Court that an application in reply was filed without giving out the names of the legal representatives, and praying that the C.M.P.No.23-R-86 be treated as an application for the substitution of legal representatives. This hardly satisfies the requirement and ought it be said that even at this stage no attempt was made to give out the names of the legal representatives or to show cause as to why steps were not taken to implead the legal representatives as from 14-12-1982 till today despite the fact that the appellant had notice of the demise of the deceased.
2. Accordingly, we see no justification to condone the delay. As the appeal is improperly constituted, it cannot proceed against the deceased-respondent with the result that it is dismissed for non- prosecution.