GHULAM FARID and another vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision. The underlying dispute involves a suit for possession which was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioners had filed an appeal against the decree but inadvertently impleaded a deceased respondent, despite the legal representatives of the deceased having already been brought on record in the lower court. The petitioners' subsequent request to correct the record of the appeal was denied, leading to the dismissal of their appeal and the subsequent dismissal of their civil revision. The core legal question is whether an appeal can be dismissed on the grounds of failing to implead necessary parties or being time-barred when the legal representatives were already on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issues raised regarding the procedural dismissal of the appeal require further examination by the Court. The decision establishes that procedural errors in impleading parties, particularly when legal representatives are already known to the court, warrant a substantive review rather than summary dismissal.
- Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to implead necessary parties when their legal representatives are already on record?
- Whether an appeal can be dismissed as time-barred due to a mistake in impleading a deceased respondent?
- Does the failure to correctly implead a party in an appeal warrant the dismissal of the entire appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The defendants' side in a suit for possession have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision.
2. ' The respondents/plaintiffs' suit was decreed. The petitioners filed an appeal; but, through mistake impleaded a deceased respondent, though his legal representatives had already been brought on the record of the lower Court. The petitioners sought to correct the record of appeal. Their request was denied and appeal dismissed. Their civil revision also met the same fate. They have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on Muhammad Sher v. Muhammad Khan, PLD 1975 Lahore 1016 and Abdus Sattar v. Muhammad Bakhsh, PLD 1978 Lahore 1043, contended that in the circumstances of this case, the petitioners' appeal could neither be dismissed on ground of failure to implead necessary parties nor could it be dismissed as time-barred, for failure to implead such a party within the time of limitation. This and other questions raised in this petition require examination.
4. ' Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Security Rs, 5,000.
5. ' Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. 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.