Mst. ZENAB BIBI And 4 Others vs NISAR AHMAD And 37 Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the High Court in a pending second appeal, whereby the legal heirs of a deceased pro forma defendant were impleaded subject to objections. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interim order of the High Court allowing the substitution of legal representatives during the pendency of a regular second appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned interim order was expressly made subject to objections and could be assailed by the petitioners if the final decision in the regular second appeal went against them, there was no justification for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused the petition for leave to appeal, establishing that interlocutory orders subject to future objections and ultimate appealability do not ordinarily warrant interference under extraordinary appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an interim order that allows the impleading of legal heirs subject to objections?
- Can an interlocutory order passed by the High Court during a pending second appeal be assailed after the final decision if the appeal is decided against the aggrieved party?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---The legal heirs of a deceased party having been impleaded by the High Court in a pending second appeal, the petitioners have challenged the interim order passed by that Court in this behalf.
2. The approach of the High Court was that the concerned party was one of the pro forma defendants. On. His "demise his daughter Aisha was impleaded and now she herself has passed away. Her legal representatives be brought on the record but it shall be subject to the objection .........................................................................................................With this reservation, the C.M. Is allowed."
3. Obviously the order was subject to objection and further if ultimately the Regular Second Appeal is decided against the petitioners they would be able to assail the said interim order if they choose to seek remedy before the Supreme Court. With this observation we find no justification for grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly refused.