Pervaiz Baig vs District Judge Neelum O — 2026 MLD 110 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Pervaiz Baig VS District Judge Neelum O. I, R. 10---Legal heirs of deceased party, impleading of---Scope---Right to sue, survival of---Plaintiff instituted suit against number of defendants; later, he filed application for impleading legal heirs of one of defendants ('defendant-in-question') which was concurrently allowed---Objection of petitioner (yet another defendant ) was that defendant-in-question was already dead at the time of institution of suit so plaintiff filed suit against a dead person whose legal heirs could not be impleaded later---Validity---As the right to sue was alive and some other defendants were also arrayed in the line of defendants, thus, right to sue was surviving against the deceased and on account of lack of knowledge he was arrayed in the line of defendants instead of his legal heirs, therefore the petitioner could not be non-suited merely for his inadvertence or lack of knowledge---Survival of right to sue under civil law denotes that all rights of action existing in favour of or against do survive, but only personal action regarding with individuality of the deceased does not survive---Any action of the person who passed away, if having remote nexus with the rights of anyone and by any way, in shape of pecuniary benefit or property rights, consequently of the same, his liability by fiction of law automatically shifts upon the shoulders of his legal heirs---Neither any suit is filed against a dead person nor any decree can be passed against dead person; suit brought against a dead person is liable to be buried in its inception while decree is nullity in the eye of law---Albeit if cause of action is alive against the legal representatives of such person they can be added as a party in the civil lis and the matter is to be governed under O.1, R.10, C.P.C.---Addition of legal representatives of deceased is not contrary to law---A scrutiny of the application reveals that the plaintiffs/respondents moved application to enter the names of said defendants and not the substitution of respondent No.2 which is mentioned in the suit---Pertinently, under O.I, R.10, C.P.C., the Courts can add or substitute the name of defendant in the suit at any stage during the proceedings which is necessary for adjudication of the case---Thus, the Courts below had rightly accepted the application of the plaintiffs/respondents and had not committed any illegality, irregularity and perversity while passing the impugned orders---High Court maintained the orders impugned as the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondents---Writ petition, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Pervaiz Baig vs District Judge Neelum O — 2026 MLD 110 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD