FATA Vs. MUKHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an application has been presented earlier before the learned trial court for substitution of legal representatives of deceased Gh. Mohi-ud-din Dar.

(2.) Ongoing through the record, it came to fore that the application has been filed on 26/7/2003 wherein date of death of the deceased is shown to be 19/2/2003 and the deceased is shown to be survived by his son, Mohammad Ashraf Dar, and daughter, Zamrooda. This application finds reference in the order passed by the learned trial court on 4th of March, 2004, wherein defendants have been asked to file objections, if any. There is, however, no specific order for allowing the said application. Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court too does not indicate any of the legal heirs having been brought on record in place of deceased, Gh. Mohi-ud-din Dar. Rather the judgment and decree of the learned trial court refers the deceased as the defendant and judgment debtor. In the appeal filed on behalf of present appellant, legal representatives of the deceased have not been arrayed as party, rather the appeal is being filed by one of the defendants/judgment debtors against the respondent No.1 (contesting respondent) and two other defendants/judgment debtors, namely, Gh. Hassan Dar and Ab. Rasheed Koka.

(3.) In the memo of Civil 2nd Appeal, following three questions, referred at para 9, have been prayed to be framed as substantial questions of law: