Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHUJAWAL VS Respondent: SHERALI SUTARIA
1988 C L C 1149
1988 C L C 1149
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
Haji SHUJAWAL‑‑Appellant
versus
SHERALI SUTARIA and others‑-Respondents
High Court Appeal No.'74 of 1987, decided on 11th August, 1987.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑0. I, R. 10 & 0. XXII, Rr. 4 & 5‑‑Impleading of intervenor as heir of deceased defendant‑‑Holding of inquiry as to legal representatives when to be necessary‑‑Order under ‑appeal in which intervenor was allowed to be impleaded‑ showed that no argument regarding holding of inquiry by Court in terms of 0. XXII, R. 5, C.P.C. was advanced by appellant though objection was taken in counter‑affidavit‑‑Appellant can question the status of impleaded persons as the legal heirs of deceased‑defendant at a subsequent stage by making appropriate application‑‑Appeal against order of impleading intervenor was dismissed in circumstances.
Iqbal Kazi for Appellant.
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This is a High Court Appeal against the order dated 30‑3‑1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in suit No.573/81 allowing the application of the intervenor under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. on the ground that they were related to the deceased defendant No.l. The appellants being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present appeal.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are that the present respondent No.l filed the aforesaid suit against Miss Gulsher R. Kharas who was defendant No.l in the suit, and the present appellant who was defendant No.2 in the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. During the pendency of the above suit defendant No. 1 expired. Thereupon C.M.A 4233/86 was filed under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. whereby the intervenor sought impleading of himself and two other persons as the legal heirs of the deceased whereas the second application was filed under order XXII Rule 2 C.P.C whereby the plaintiff sought impleading of two persons namely Mrs. Rusi Minocherji and Mrs. Ava Kharas. The learned Single Judge has allowed the above applications. The appellant being, aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
In support of the above appeal Mr. Iqbal Kazi the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that since in the counter‑affidavit filed by the appellant it was denied that the deceased/ defendant had left any legal heir it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to have held enquiry in terms of Order XXII Rule 5 C . P . C . particularly in view of the fact that there was a statement of deceased /defendant alongwith the written statement that she had no legal heirs. However, from the order under appeal we find that no rich arguments were advanced though the objection was taken in the counter‑affidavit. Be that as it may, in our view, it will be just and proper to observe that it will still be open to the appellant to question the status of the impleaded persons as the legal heirs of the deceased defendant at a subsequent stage by filing appropriate application.
With the above observation the appeal is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./H‑74/K ‑‑‑‑‑ Appeal dismissed.