' The dispute relates to allotment of land in Chak L/Plot, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal. One Mst. Hasni was allotted some land against which respondent No, 3 filed an appeal. The day the appeal was filed, the area was cancelled from her name, and allotted to the petitioners and some of their predecessor-in-interest by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 19-8-1959. The respondent challenged these allotments by means of seven separate appeals. These were accepted on the ground that the respondent was a temporary allottee of the estate whereas the petitioners were not. It is vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 15-11- 1960. On the same grounds, the petitioners' revisions were dismissed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 27-11-1962. The petitioners challenged these orders by means of a writ petition No, 184/R of 1963 which was allowed and the Additional Settlement Commissioner was directed to rehear the revision petitions afresh vide order dated 15-4-1966. On remand, the Settlement Commissioner accepted some of the revision petitions but rejected those of the petitioners vide order dated 8-12-1969. The petitioners challenged the last mentioned order by means of a petition under Article 98 of the late Constitution of 1962 in this Court.
2. While this petition was pending in this Court, the sole contesting respondent expired on 7-8-1970.
The petitioners filed an application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent under Order II, rule 4 read with section 151, C. P. C. Vide C. M. No, 1754/1971. It was stated in the application that the deceased had died on 9-2-1971. The application had been filed on 8-4- 1971. The Deputy Registrar, of this Court passed the following order. "The application is within time.
Granted subject to all just exceptions" This is vide order dated 24-5-1971. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent filed an application C. M. No, 3 of 1975, under Order XXII, rule 4 (3) read with section 151, C. P. C. Stating that the deceased respondent had died on 7-8-1970. A certified copy of the death entry was attached. It was submitted that the legal representatives, having not been impleaded within time, the writ petition had abated. It was added that in order to circumvent the situation, the petitioners bad "purposely mis-stated the date of death" of the deceased respondent as 9-2-1971 and had not submitted the death certificate. Thus, they had got, by misrepresentation, an order of impleading the legal representative from this Court. This application was filed on 3-4-1975. Notice of this application was ordered on 4-4-1975 for 10-4-1975. On 24-4- 1975, the petitioners flied two applications,- one C. M. 4 of 1975 under Order XXII, rule 9 read with section 151, C. P C. For setting aside the abatement and the other C. M. No, 5/75 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The grounds urged in these applications are that the petitioner No, 1 generally resided in Lahore and not at the place where the land in dispute is situated and the respondent had died, that the petitioners No, 2 had already died, that petitioner No, 3 who was an old and sick man generally resided with his brother in another district, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 also resided in Lahore and that petitioner No, 6, though resided in Chak but remained ill during that period and his elder son was posted in a remotely situated place in Bahawalnagar and that petitioner No, 7 resided with his son at Lyalipur because of constrained relations with respondent, the petitioners did not come to know of the exact date of death of the respondent, and also that there was a common graveyard of the Chak situ ated more than a mile away from the Abadi of the Chak. It was added that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent also lived at different places and, therefore, addresses could not be known ; lastly, that the law relating to abatement of writ proceedings was not settled at that time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has elaborated the aforesaid grounds and argued that the legal representatives of the deceased respondents, too, had not filed the appli cation for abatement promptly and, consequently, this application should not be allowed. Reliance is placed on Niroda Sundasi Mondal and another v. Praja Lal Mondal and others (1). It is, further, urged that since there were a large number of legal representatives of the deceased respondent, therefore, the petition cannot be abated for non-impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent with the prescribed time. Reliance is placed on Sh. Ghulam Muhammad and another v.
The Bank of Bahawalpur Limited and 21 others (2). Lastly, it is urged that in a case in which legal re presentatives of a deceased respondent were not impleaded within time and the writ petition had abated, the High Court set aside the abatement. When this order was challenged on the ground that it was erroneous in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 164/73 before the Supreme Court their Lordships refused to grant leave and dismissed the petition vide order dated 16-6-1973.
4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased respondent has submitted that the petitioners had tried to over-reach this Court for obtaining a favourable order of impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent by misrepresenting his. Date of death as 9- 2-1971 when they filed the application on 8-4-1971. Secondly, that the deceased respondent had, in fact died on 7-8-1970 and the writ had automatically abated, before the application was filed. In the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel contends that there is no justification for condonation of delay. The reason advanced that the petitioners did not 'generally' live in the Chak cannot be accepted when the petitioners themselves have stated in their writ petition in para. 1 that the addresses of the parties for the purposes of service of all notices is as given in the title of the petition, which is of the Chak concerned. Further, that it was the duty of the 'petitioners
(1) PLD 1970 Dacca 383 (2) 1971 SCM R 148 ' to remain in the knowledge of the events relating to the respondent. The learned counsel submits that the grounds advanced are no more than lame excuses for meeting the application of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent made before this Court to order that the petition had abated.
5. There is no denying the fact that the application filed by the petitioners for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent filed on 8-4-1971 was based on the misrepresentation that the respondent had died on 9-2-1971. The application was not accompanied by the death certificate. In any case, the application had been allowed "subject to all exceptions". The legal representatives of the deceased respondent have taken "just exception" when they urge that the deceased respondent had died on 7-8-1970 and no application, having been made for bringing on record his legal representatives within time, the petition had abated.
The reasons advanced for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay in reply to the application of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent that the petition had abated, are too general and not easily acceptable. In view of their previous stand taken in their application C. M. 1754 of 1971 wherein they had categorically stated that the deceased respondent died on 9-2- 1971, the present pleadings of the petitioners are not consistant. Authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable in so far as that in the case from Dacca, the application for bringing legal representatives had been allowed in the first instance in the presence of the parties. In civil petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 164/73 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had refused to interfere in the order of the High Court setting aside the abatement on the grounds that the matter had related to inheritance and that the order passed by the High Court was in aid of doing substantial justice between the parties. In the present case, the dispute is about preferential right of the parties for allotment and the deceased respondent had consistently been held to be sitting allottee of the estate and entitled to allotment.
5. In view of the circumstances of the case as narrated above. The applications for setting aside the abatement and condoning delay cannot succeed and are, therefore, rejected, with the result that the writ, petition stands abated. Since there was only a sole contesting respondent, the petition abates in toto in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.