Pakistan Case Law
1975 SCMR 54

MEHTAB BEG AND 2 OTHERS vs CHIRAGH ALI REPRESENTED BY (HEIRS)

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1975 SCMR 54
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 70 of 1974
Date1974-10-07
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali Actg C. J. and Muhammad Gul
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed an application to implead the legal representatives of a deceased respondent in a second appeal. The petitioners had failed to include the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Chiragh Ali, in their memorandum of appeal, citing a typist's error as the cause for this omission. The High Court rejected this explanation, finding it inadequate to condone the delay, and consequently declared the appeal abated against those legal representatives. The core legal question was whether a failure to implead legal representatives due to a clerical error constitutes sufficient grounds to condone delay and allow the amendment of the appeal memorandum. The Supreme Court held that the responsibility for the accuracy of court filings lies with the counsel, who must verify the memorandum against the decree-sheets. The Court affirmed that the petitioners must bear the consequences of their counsel's failure to perform this duty, thereby refusing leave to appeal and upholding the abatement of the appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a clerical error by a typist in a memorandum of appeal constitute sufficient grounds to condone the failure to implead legal representatives?
  • Is a counsel responsible for verifying the accuracy of a memorandum of appeal against the decree-sheets filed?
  • Can an appeal be declared abated if the legal representatives of a deceased respondent are not impleaded in a timely manner?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order XLI Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 107, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
abatement of appeallegal representativesclerical errorcondonation of delayduty of counselimpleadment

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, ACTG. C. J.-Chiragh Ali was one of the respondents in the First Appeal filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. On his death his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. In the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioners in the High Court neither Chiragh Ali nor his legal representatives were impleaded. After a lapse of nearly one year the petitioners moved an application in the High Court under Order XLI, rule 20 and Order I, rule 10 read with sections 107 and 151, C. P. C. For correction of the memorandum of appeal and including the names of the legal representatives of Chiragh All as respondents.

2. ' The explanation given by the petitioners for the omission to implead the legal representatives of Chiragh Ali, deceased, was not cogent and rejected by a learned Judge. Consequent upon it the appeal qua the legal representatives of Chiragh All was declared to have abated.

3. ' The petitioners seek leave to appeal on the ground that the omission to implead the legal representatives of Chiragh All was due to a bona fide mistake of the typist who had prepared the memorandum of appeal. This contention was considered by the learned Judge in the High Court and found to be inadequate for condoning the delay and depriving the legal representatives of Chiragh All of valuable rights which had accrued to them.

4. Raja Said Akbar has not been able to convince us that the petitioners should not be penalized for the error made by the typist or their counsel. It was the duty of the latter to compare the typed memorandum of appeal with the copy of the decree-sheets supplied to him which was filed along with the memorandum of appeal in the High Court. It was thus not case of an error on the part of the typist alone, but equally of the learned counsel for which the petitioners have to suffer.

5. ' Leave to appeal is refused Dismissed.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.