NAWAB KARIM vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other
This appeal arises from a civil dispute involving settlement authorities, where a preliminary objection was raised regarding the abatement of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased respondent (respondent No. 3) within the prescribed statutory period. The core legal question was whether the appeal abated upon the appellant's failure to bring the legal representatives on record within 90 days, despite having knowledge of the death and receiving formal intimation. The Court held that the appeal had indeed abated against the deceased respondent, rejecting the appellant's plea that ignorance of the law and ongoing out-of-court settlement negotiations justified the delay. The Court further dismissed the appellant's argument that the appeal could survive against the remaining respondents, noting that the relief sought was specifically directed against an order benefiting the deceased respondent. The key principle laid down is that each day of delay in procedural compliance must be explained, and ignorance of the law or informal settlement efforts does not constitute sufficient cause to condone a failure to meet mandatory limitation periods for impleading legal representatives.
- Does an appeal abate if the legal representatives of a deceased respondent are not brought on record within the period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules?
- Can ignorance of the law regarding procedural timelines serve as a valid excuse for delay in impleading legal representatives?
- Does an appeal abate as a whole if it fails to implead the legal representatives of one respondent but other respondents remain on the record?
- Order XVI Rule 9, Supreme Court Rules 1956
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents, that this appeal has abated owing to the non-impleadment within time, of the legal representatives of respondent No. 3 (Manzarul Haq Karimi) who had died on the 29th of March 1968. It is alleged that the appellant who is a brother-in-law of Manzarul Haq Karimi, deceased, knew about his death and had attended his funeral.
2. The record shows that the respondent's Attorney sent a letter on the 28th of June 1968, to the Registry of this Court with a copy to the Attorney for the appellant, conveying an intimation that Manzarul. Haq had died on the 29th of March 1968. In spite of this information no application was made to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record till the 30th of September 1968, i.e. After 92 days of this intimation. Order XVI, rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, prescribes a period of 90 days for such a step.
3. The appellant has filed an affidavit to explain the circum--stances of the delay in making the application. He admits that he knew about the death of Manzarul Haq on the data' on which it occurred nut he did not know that the legal representatives of the deceased had to be brought on record within a specified tune. He has further submitted "that soon after the death of Manzarul Haq efforts were made to bring about a settlement between the parties and for that reason he was not expected to take any step for the prosecution of the appeal".
4. Ignorance of law is no excuse, but in this case the appellant was put on notice to take the necessary action by the intimation sent by the respondent's Attorney which was duly communicated to him by his own Attorney, but he did not bother, pursuing, m the meanwhile, his own efforts to settle the matter out of Court. Each day's delay must be explained and here there is a delay of 92 days for which there is no excuse whatsoever.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as the' Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner are also parties to this appeal, it cannot abate as a whole and survives against the other respondents on the record. This plea is wholly fantastic. The appeal is directed against an order which was made by the Settlement Authorities in favour of Manzarul Haq and which must now enure to the benefit of his legal representatives. No relief is sought against the other respondents. In the circumstances, we hold that the appeal has abated as against respondent No. 3 on account of the failure of the appellant to bring his legal representatives on record within time.
6. The appeal is dismissed against the rest of the respondents, No costs.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUZAFFAR AND 2 OTHERS vs Moulvi AZIZUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS 1983 CLC 16
- Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other 1983 SCMR 112
- QADIR BAKHSH vs SAIF UR REHMAN AND Other 1981 SCMR 166
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs Syed SAGHIRUL HASSAN And Other 1985 SCMR 1758