GHULAM QADIR And Others vs ALLAH YAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an appeal due to abatement. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a decree involving an indivisible sale transaction abates in its entirety if the legal representatives of one of the deceased joint appellants are not impleaded within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court had determined that the sale in favour of the two joint purchasers, Pathana and Sohna, was indivisible, rendering the decree obtained by the respondent pre-emptor also indivisible. Consequently, the High Court held that the failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record within time resulted in the total abatement of the appeal. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. The principle laid down is that where a decree arises from an indivisible transaction, the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased party in an appeal results in the abatement of the entire appeal, as the decree cannot be set aside in part.
- Does an appeal against a decree involving an indivisible sale transaction abate in its entirety if the legal representatives of one of the deceased joint appellants are not impleaded within the limitation period?
- Is a decree obtained in a pre-emption suit regarding an indivisible sale considered indivisible for the purposes of appeal abatement?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- Pathana, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 8, and Sohna, petitioner No.9, jointly purchased in equal shares agricultural land out of a joint khata. Allah Yar, respondent filed a suit for pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge. Pathana and Sohna filed a second appeal in the High Court. In 1968 when the second appeal was still pending Pathana died. The application for bringing his legal representatives on record was made on 24-2-1987 which was rejected on the ground of limitation.
The High Court then dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had abated. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court.
2. There is a finding by the High Court that the sale made in favour of Pathana and Sohna was indivisible. That being so, the decree obtained by the respondent was also indivisible. In the circumstances the view taken by the High Court that the failure to implead the legal representatives of Pathana within time resulted in total abatement of the appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. In fact it finds support from a decision of this Court reported as Shah Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh PLD 1972 SC 321. This petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.