' This is a Miscellaneous Appeal under section 384 read with section 299 of Successions Act, 1925 against the order dated 8-3-2003 whereby the appellant's application under section 151/152 read with Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. For modification, alteration and rectification of the order dated 11-1- 2003 was dismissed.
2. It appears that in addition to the SMA No.92 of 2002 tiled by the petitioner before the Court of District and Sessions Judge other suits are also pending in respect of the properties/assets of deceased Abdul Razzak, the late husband of the present appellant. Initially the letters of administration was allowed by order dated 5-11-2002 in favour of the appellant/widow but subsequently on application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the respondent, the said order was modified and the letters of administration granted in favour of the appellant in respect of the immovable property bearing No.D-133, Block-4, Metrowill Site, Karachi remained intact whereas the order pertaining to the Account No.497-2 with the Muslim Commercial Bank was set aside in view of the some orders passed in Suits Nos.371 of 2002 and 805 of 2002.
3. The appellant filed the application under sections 151/152 read with Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. For modification and alteration of the order dated 11-1-2003 and wanted thereby to include the aforesaid account number into the letters of administration. This application was dismissed as observed above and hence this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel and examined the orders. The emphasis of the counsel for the appellant is that the Account No.497-2 at Muslim Commercial Bank was in the name of the deceased and it was not part and parcel of the partnership business namely M/s. New Chishtian Goods Transport Company. In support of this contention, she has relied upon a certificate from the Muslim Commercial Bank showing that Account No.497-2 care of M/s. New Chishtian Goods Transport Company was in the name of Abdul Razzak son of Noor Muhammad. She submitted that this account being personal account of the deceased has no concern with the partnership business and M/s. New Chistian Goods Transport Company has been mentioned only as an address of account holder. This contention has been vehemently repelled by Mr. Lakhani and he submitted that this account is also the subject-matter of the aforesaid two suits and it is not a personal account and therefore, no order can be passed in regard thereto and the Trial Court rightly excluded the said account number from the letters of administration issued in favour of the appellant.
5. In addition to the above, Mr. Lakhani also contended that the present appeal is barred by limitation as the appeal under Article 156 of the Limitation Act is to be filed within 90 days. He submits that in fact appealable order was the order dated 11-1-2003 and not the last order dated 6-8-2003.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the time starts running from the time when she moved application under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. For modification of the order which was dismissed on 6-8-2003 and she filed appeal within a period of 90 days.
7. I considered the submissions of the Counsels. As far as the status of the account is concerned, subject to any findings in the suits above, I am satisfied that this account was a personal account of the deceased and is not covered by the alleged partnership between the deceased and the present respondents, therefore, there is no legal impediment in including the account number in the letters of administration issued in favour of the appellant. As far as the second objection as to the limitation is concerned. Since this is a matter of summary nature. I am not inclined to go into the details and give a finding to that effect and keeping in view the interest of both the parties, I allow the appeal and order that the said account number be also included into the letters of administration subject to appellant's furnishing surety covering the said account before the Nazir of the Trial Court as ordered on 5-11-2002 by the District and Sessions Judge.
8. However, the above observations are tentative in nature and are subject to any final decision in the aforesaid two suits.