Abatement

  1. Decree of adverse possession being joint and indivisible-death of one decree-holder has to result in the total abatement of suit. Muhammad Nazir and others v. Khan Afsar Khan and others 1993 SCR 112 (A)
  2. Shares of Muslim heirs are ascertainable under Muslim law and appeal would abate only to the extent of respondent and not in toto — Abatement of a suit or appeal in case of non-impleadment of a legal representative would only occur if it is not possible to adjudicate upon the dispute in absence of such a legal representative for one reason or the other. Nazir Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Shaukat Khan & 6 others 1998 SCR 269 (B)
  3. Doctrine of partial pre-emption — Contention that suit would abate only to the extent of the share of Mst. Fazal Begum deceased-Not acceptable — Held: Suit filed by the appellant abated as whole. Muhammad Ashraf and 6 others v. Alam Din and 6 others 2001 SCR 441 (B)
  4. Abatement — Application for setting aside the abatement was given on mistaken view that application for bringing on record the legal representatives had not already been given — Nobody can be penalized for the mistake of the Court. Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Afsar& 5 others 2002 SCR 420 (C)
  5. Abatement of criminal appeal — S. 431Cr.P.C. — The representatives of a deceased convicted person can be allowed to appeal on showing legal interest — It follows that appeal against fine may be permitted to continue — In case of imprisonment the sentence does not effect the property of the deceased-accused so the appeal abates upon his death — Criminal appeals do not abate with the death of the complainant or a person injured — On death of the complainant-appellant the appeal would not be abated. Talib Hussain and 5 others v. Dawood and 5 others 2003 SCR 135 (A)
  6. Administration and control of land belonging to respondents was taken over by the Administrator Auqaf through a notification — All the respondents moved an application under section 7 of Waqaf Property Act 1960 — The respondents including those whose legal representatives have not been brought on record, availed the right of appeal before the High Court which was allowed — The High Court in body of the judgment has held that the property in dispute was not dedicated by the predecessors of the respondents for any purpose recognized by Muslim law as religious, pious or charitable — Administrator Auqaf was not justified to assume the control and management of the property in question — The decision given in favour of respondents cannot be bifurcated — Held: The appeal as a whole on account of non-impleadment of legal representatives of deceased respondents has become incompetent and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without entering into merits of the case. Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Shahpawal Qureshi & 61 others 2003 SCR 253 (A)
  7. The accused-appellants are prima facie guilty of abetment and shared common intention which resulted in death of Muhammad Nasim — The legal descendants of deceased have not so far compromised with the accused-appellants — They are not entitled to claim the benefit of compromise effected between complainant party and Rashid Iqbal — Held: The Shariat Court was justified in law in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of accused-appellants. Muhammad Siddique & another v. Muhammad Ghafoor and another 2003 SCR 282 (B)
  8. Defendant No.10 (Baroo) had died and no application for impleading his legal representatives was moved within the stipulated period, the suit would abate to the extent of aforesaid defendant. Abdul Razzaq v. Muhammad Zaman and 4 others 2004 SCR 321 (A)

9. Shares of defendant No.10 Baroo and that of Muhammad Zaman were determined — Abatement would not operate in toto but to the extent of share of said defendant. Abdul Razzaq v. Muhammad Zaman and 4 others 2004 SCR 321 (B)

10. O. XXII rule 3 C.P.C. before 1972 conferred powers upon Courts to dismiss the suit on account of abatement — In 1972 an amendment was introduced in Pakistan whereby powers of dismissal of suit on the basis of abatement have been taken away — It has been laid down in the aforesaid rule that if no application is moved for impleading legal representatives it shall not make any difference.  Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (A)

11. If the legal heirs of deceased, plaintiff, are not arrayed as party, the suit to his extent will automatically abated. Muhammad Rasheed & 5 others versus Muhammad Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2016 SCR 505 (C)

error: Content is protected !!