CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment and decree pased by the High Court on 15-5-2004 whereby an appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rawalakot was dismissed.
2. The facts are that one Sardar Muhamad Afsar Khan filed a suit for damages against the Secretary Public Works Department and others in the Court of District Judge, Rawalakot. The suit after its conclusion was decreed for an amount of rupees two lacs. An appeal on behalf of Public Works Department was filed before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.. During the pendency of the appeal the said Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan died and an application for impleading his legal representatives was also filed and the legal representatives were brought on the record except one legal heir for whom another application to bring her on record was filed. The appeal was dismissed. This appeal challenges the aforesaid judgment and decree.
3. The learned counsel representing the appellants moved an application in the Registry office of this Court for impleading the legal representatives of late Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan against whom the appeal was filed. The Additional Registrar of this Court referred the matter to the Court.
4. Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate-General contended that the appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court where the name of Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan was recorded, therefore, the appellants were misled as such an application was moved for the purpose. The application, therefore, is maintainable and the appeal is also competent.
5. Syed Habib Hussain Shah, the learned counsel appearing from the opposite side, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants, argued that the legal representative of said Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan were impleaded in the High Court on the application moved on behalf of the appellants. Though all the legal representatives were not brought on the record and the matter was sub judice before the High Court on this point, however, the High Court arrived at a conclusion that the appeal has not been filed by the aggrieved party against whom the judgment and decree was passed. It was also argued that it was in the knowledge of the appellants and they filed appeal against a dead person which was not competent, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The appellants filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Rawalakot.
During pendency of the appeal an application for the impleadment of the legal representatives of Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan, respondent, was brought on the record. However, one of the legal heirs, Zubaida Begum, was left over and an application was moved for including her in the line of respondents. The relevant observation madp by the learned Judge in the High Court is usefully reproduced:-- ' During pendency of the appeal, respondent, Afsar Khan, died. The legal heirs of the respondent have been brought on the record, however, one of the legal heirs, Zubaida Bugum, has been left over. The application was moved for including her in the line of the respondents on which arguments were to be heard.-
7. The appeal was fixed for arguments on the point whether the legal heir left out could be included in the line of respondents but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same was not filed on behalf of aggrieved party against whom the decree was passed. Therefore, it can safely be held that the appellants were well aware of the fact that Sardar Muhammad Afsar Khan had died and the appeal could not be filed against a dead person. It follows that the party in whose favour the decree was passed, appeal was not filed against him. The application moved for impleading the legal heirs in the Registry Office has no legal bearing as the appeal could be filed against the decree-holders which has not been filed in due course of prescribed limitation, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground without entering into the other merits on which the learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the appeal.
' In view of the above, the appeal is found to have no substance in it, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.