MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND Other
The matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) as having abated. The original dispute involved a decree for possession of agricultural land obtained by the respondent's predecessor-in-interest based on superior rights of pre-emption. Following the death of the sole respondent during the pendency of the second appeal, the petitioner failed to implead the legal representatives within the statutory period. The petitioner contended that the limitation period should commence from the date of his actual knowledge of the death, rather than the date of death itself. The High Court rejected this plea, finding the petitioner's claim of ignorance regarding the death implausible, and subsequently dismissed the appeal as abated. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no error in the dismissal of the appeal for failure to implead the legal representatives in time. The court affirmed that procedural requirements regarding the substitution of legal representatives must be strictly adhered to, and ignorance of a party's death is not a valid excuse when evidence suggests otherwise.
- Does the limitation period for impleading legal representatives of a deceased respondent commence from the date of the party's death or the date of the appellant's knowledge of the death?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as abated when the appellant fails to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court regarding the date of knowledge of a party's death subject to interference if the finding is based on evidence?
- Order XXII Rule 3(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI. J: Muhammad Ali Khan the prede--cessor in interest of the respondents obtained a decree for posses--sion of certain agricultural land against the petitioner in exercise of his superior rights of pre-emption. On appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court were affirmed by the District Judge aggrieved by which the petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court which due to change in the law was subsequently converted into a second appeal.
2. Muhammad Ali the sole respon--dent in the appeal flied' during the pendency of the appeal and for nearly two years no steps were taken by the petitioner to bring: on record his legal representatives. The application made by the petitioner for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased was accordingly opposed by the respondents as being out of time and the respondent No. 5 also filed an affidavit to the effect that petition had timely knowledge of the death of his father. Vic petitioner maintained that he did not come to know of the demise of Muhammad Ali in time and that the time prescribed by law for impleading his legal representatives started to run from the date of his knowledge. The learned Judges ruled out both the pleas and found that it was not believable that the petitioner had not come to know of the demise of Muhammad Ali in time. The R. S. A. Was accordingly dismissed under Rule 3 (2) read with rule 11 of the Order XXII C.- P.
3. C., as having abated.
4. No exception can, therefore, by taken to the order of the High Court dismissing the R. S. A., as having abated on account of the failure to implead the legal representatives of Muhammad Ali the deceased respondentin time.
5. The petition is dismissed.