NOOR-UD-DIN BEIG Vs. GH QADIR SOFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE the fact that the case has duly been listed in the cause list today for hearing, nobody is present for the respondents.

(2.) IN the civil second appeal, though appellants have protected number of questions for determination, but from close scrutiny of the facts of the case, I do find that two questions require consideration which read: "Whether in taw the appellants were required to impugned the decree as it existed or as it ought to have been in particular with reference to the parties whose rights it represented to adjudicate upon in relation to the matter in controversy in the suit? 4. Whether in the wake of the impugned decree, dated 9 -4 -1988 constituting the subject matter of appeal in the 1st. Appellate Court, the 1st. Appellate Court below was justified in law to dismiss the appeal pending before it under Section 96 of CPC on the assumed and unfounded legal infirmity -

(3.) WHILE advancing his arguments, Mr. Jan has invited my attention to the suit which was filed by the persons of Ghulam Qadir Sofi S/o Samad Soft, Ali Mohammad Sofi S/o Samad Sofi, Jail Bibi W/o Gh. Qadir, Mst. Fazi W/o Ali Mohammad Sofi R/o Kathidarwaza, Srinagar against Noor -ud -Din Beig and others. During the pendency of suit, one of the plaintiffs Ali Mohammad Sofi died and at the relevant time, application for bringing on record his legal representatives was brought on record. However, at the time of drafting of the decree sheet, inadvertently this correction of the legal representatives of the deceased and showing them in the array of plaintiffs has not been done by the court, which resulted in the drafting of a decree in the name of a dead person also alongwith other co -plaintiffs.