MEHNGA vs NAWAB DIN And Other
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an unprosecuted matter where the appellant passed away on 3rd March 1980, and an application for substitution of legal representatives was filed belatedly on 29th July 1985 without showing sufficient cause or justifying the inordinate delay of nearly five years. The core legal question concerned whether such prolonged delay in seeking substitution without valid justification could be condoned. The Court held that the delay could not be condoned, noting that the excuses regarding illiteracy, lack of knowledge, and counsel were unsubstantiated and omitted from the condonation application. The established principle is that an inordinate delay in filing a substitution application without showing sufficient cause renders the appeal defective and imperfect, resulting in its disposal in the absence of the deceased appellant.
- Whether an inordinate delay of nearly five years in filing an application for substitution of legal representatives can be condoned without showing sufficient cause?
- Does an appeal abate or become imperfect when no timely steps are taken to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased appellant?
- Law Reforms Ordinance
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The appellant in this appeal died on 3rd of March, 1980, but no effort was made by the legal representatives to get themselves substituted in his place until the 29th of July, 1985, when such an application was filed, but in that' application too no attempt is made to justify the delay and all that is stated is that they were illiterate and had no knowledge of these proceedings as the appeal was being prosecuted by their father, and the more so that they had no knowledge as to which counsel was engaged to prosecute the appeal. The learned counsel for the legal representatives, however, stated that they were misled because of the amendment made in the provision for the substitution of the legal representatives by the Law Reforms Ordinance. This reason does note find place in the application for the condonation of delay nor do the reasons given show sufficient cause for the condonation of an inordinate delay of almost five years.
2. Accordingly, we would not condone the delay and hold that as the appellant had died the appeal cannot proceed in his absence, and for that reason the record is defective. The appeal is thus imperfect and stands disposed of as such.