' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---In a suit for declaration filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-1-2003. The respondents filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court against the said judgment and decree, however, during the pendency of that appeal, respondent No,1 Ghulam Nabi expired and his L. Rs, was accordingly impleaded. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of learned trial Court resulting into dismissal of the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-2003. The decree sheet was accordingly prepared mentioning inter alia the names of L.Rs, of respondent No,1.
The instant civil revision was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff on 21-11-2003 against respondent No,l. Ghulam Nabi (deceased) and one another but legal heirs of respondent No,1 (deceased) were not impleaded therein. Now the petitioner through C.M. No,1-C/2012 has .Sought permission to implead L.Rs, of respondent No,1 (deceased) after about nine years of institution of the civil revision as well as the judgment and decree impugned. He has also prayed for condo-nation of delay through C.M. No,2-C/ 2012.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The moot point in this case is whether the civil revision against a dead person is maintainable or not.
4. Admittedly, respondent No,1 had expired during the proceedings before the learned lower appellate court and his legal heirs were duly impleaded in the appeal. Furthermore, the decree prepared by learned lower appellate court mentions inter alia the names of L.Rs, of respondent No,12 (deceased). Therefore, it was well in knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff before institution of the instant civil revision that respondent No,1 had already expired but he filed the civil revision against him who was no more alive, therefore, the civil revision against a dead person is not maintainable.
5. The only contention, of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the missing in question is a bona fide mistake of the petitioner' but I am not convinced therewith when respondent No,1 Ghulam Nabi had already expired during the proceedings before learned first appellate court and his legal heirs were not only impleaded but their names also incorporated in the decree sheet, the petitioner must have made them party in the instant civil revision but he badly failed to do so.
6. In support of his assertions, learned counsel for the, petitioner has relied upon the dictums laid down in cases Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through, L.Rs, (1992 SCM R 2334) and Muhammad Yagoob v. Ali Shah and 8 others (1994 M LD 1843) wherein the respondents had expired after having passed the judgment by lower appellate court whereas in the instant case, the deceased respondent had expired during the proceedings before the first appellate court which was well in knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the case in hand is quite distinguishable on facts from those referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the case-law referred by learned counsel for the respondent 'as Hafiz Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. And others v. Messrs Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (2001 SCM R 1), Muhammad Zarat and others v.
Akbar Ali through L.Rs, - and others (2007 SCM R 1566) and Malik Bashir Ahmed Khan and others v.
Qasim All and others (PLD 2009 SC 183) are quite relevant to the case in hand. The C.M.A No,1- C/2012 has been filed for impleadment of L.Rs, of respondent No,1 ' after 'about nine years of the impugned judgment and decree as well as filing of the civil revision which cannot be allowed at this stage. The petitioner has lost his right as he has failed to implead the persons who were alive at the time of institution of civil revision. The civil revision instituted against a dead person cannot be proceeded with under the law.
7. For what has been discussed above, the instant civil revision since filed against a dead person is not maintainable as such, the same is dismissed. As a consequence, C.M. No,1-C and 2-C of 2012 also stand dismissed.