' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.--This judgment will dispose of L.P.A. No, 226 of 1969 and Writ Petition No, 409-R of 1967 as the dispute involved in both these matters pertains to one and the same property i.e, Property No, 126-B-VII Sahiwal.
2. The L.P.A. Was directed against the order, dated 23-4-1969 of the then learned Chief Justice whereby the constitution petition filed by the appellants was dismissed in limine. The appellants who are non-claimants were in occupation of some of the rooms of Property No, 126-B-VII, Sahiwal.
This property comprises servant quarters and was initially treated by the Settlement Officer as part of Unit No, 120-B-VII the main bungalow. Later Fateh Muhammad respondent No, 1 and Haider Bakhsh deceased-respondent No, 2 filed an appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sahiwal vide order, dated 12-12-1960. While accepting the appeal the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directed the transfer of Property No, 126-B-VII to aforesaid Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh. Sardar Muhammad and Manzoor Ahmad the transferee of the main bungalow bearing Property No, 120-B- VII, Sahiwal challenged the appellate order, dated 12-12-1960 in revision and the then Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 27-6-1966 accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties directed that the northern-block comprising 7 servant quarters out of Property No, 126-B-VII Sahiwal shall be transferred to Sardar Muhammad and Manzoor Ahmad transferees of the main bungalow and the remaining block of the servant quarters shall remain transferred to Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh. Out of the aforesaid 7 servant quarters of the northern-block 3 quarters were transferred to Manzoor Ahmad and the other 4 quarters went to Sardar Muhammad.
3. In this L.P.A. Amir Bakhsh, Mst. Sakina Bibi and Khushi Muhammad appellants sought transfer of the rooms in their respective possession. Amir Bakhsh appellant is in occupation of 3 quarters which stood transferred to Manzoor Ahmad deceased who is now represented by his legal heirs cited as respondents Nos. 3 to 11. Mst. Sakina Bibi and Khushi Muhammad appellants are occupying rooms which stood transferred in favour of Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh. During the hearing an application was presented by the heirs of Manzoor Ahmad, i.e, respondents Nos. 3 to 11 wherein the prayer made in that L.P.A. Filed by the appellants may be allowed and the property in dispute be ordered to be transferred in favour of the appellants in accordance with their possession. It is pertinent to note that Haider Bakhsh died on 28-3-1970 and an application (C.M.
No, 4-71) for bringing on record Bheikoo as his sole representative was moved on 15-7-1971. This application was allowed subject to all just exceptions vide order, dated 28-7-1971. Bheikoo also died on 21-7-1973 and vide order, dated 8-12-1974 Muhammad Anwar and others the legal heirs of Sooba, a pre-deceased son of Haider Bakhsh were impleaded. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of Haider Bakhsh deceased-respondent No, 2 argued that the appeal as against Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh abated because the legal representatives of Haider Bakhsh were not brought on record within the prescribed time after the death of Haider Bakhsh who had died on 28-3-1970. It was added that till date an application for condonation of delay has not been filed and in Civil Miscellaneous No, 4 of 1971 even the date of death of Haider Bakhsh was not mentioned.
Learned counsel further argued that the parties are admittedly residents of one and the same property and as such it cannot be pleaded that the appellants were not aware of the death of Haider Bakhsh and in fact no such plea was taken in C.M. No, 4 of 1971. It is apparent from the above-said facts that the death as well as the abatement took place before the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and as such the appellants cannot avail of the amended provisions of Order XXII, rules 4 and 9, C.P.C. A part of Property No, 126-B-VII, Sahiwal was transferred jointly in the names of Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh deceased. The appeal as against these respondents as such stands abated. The appeal against respondents Nos. 3 to 11, legal heirs of Manzoor Ahmad, can proceed as Manzoor Ahmad was the transferee of an independent portion i.e, 3 servant quarters of Property No, 126-B-VII, Sahiwal. These legal representatives through an application have prayed that the appeal be accepted and the appellants be transferred the rooms in their respective occupation. The three rooms transferred to Manzoor Ahmad are admittedly in occupation of Haider Bakhsh. The appeal as such to the extent of Amir Bakhsh is accepted, the said room shall now be transferred to Amir Bakhsh by the Settlement Wing of the Board of Revenue. The request made by respondents Nos. 3 to 11 for the transfer of the rooms in occupation of Mat. Sakina Bibi and Khushi Muhammad appellants cannot be accepted ' as these respondents have nothing to do with the said rooms which stand transferred to Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh respondents. The appeal filed by these appellants has already been held to have abated.
4. Now Writ Petition No, 409-R of 1967 filed by Muhammad Yousaf, Allah Ditta and Nawab may be dealt with. In this case on an application (C.M. No, 2-71) vide order, dated 21-7-1971 Bheikoo was substituted in place of Haider Bakhsh deceased-respondent subject to all exceptions. After the death of Bheikoo his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record vide order, dated 15-4-1976 subject to all just exceptions. The petitioners in this writ petition are in occupation of respective rooms in the portion of servant quarters bearing property No, 126-B-VII, Sahiwal transferred to Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh. Allah Ditta and Nawab have left the property after surrendering the possession to the transferees. Muhammad Yousaf is stated to be still in occupation of one room. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of Fateh Muhammad and Haider Bakhsh deceased-respondents argued that the petition as against them stood abated as the transfer was joint and no application for bringing on record the legal heirs of Haider Bakhsh was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that an application for condonation of delay was also not filed ever. It was also argued that while seeking implement of the legal representatives the date of death of Haider Bakhsh deceased-respondent was not mentioned and that even otherwise the condonation of delay cannot be sought as the factum of death was in the knowledge of the petitioners as the petitioners as well as Haider Bakhsh deceased resided in one and the same property. Learned counsel for these respondents submitted that the order passed to implead Bheikoo was subject to all just exceptions and he was, therefore, entitled to raise this objection. He added that the death having taken place on 28-3-1970 and the legal representatives having not been brought on record within the prescribed limitation, the petition be declared to have abated. The objection about the death of Haider Bakhsh was taken in the written statement filed by respondent No, 4 in the year 1967 as well as in Civil Miscellaneous No, 295-85 filed on 8-5- 1985 in the L.P.A. No, counter-affidavit was filed by the appellants or the writ-petitioners to controvert the fact that factum of death of Haider Bakhsh was not in their knowledge. In these circumstances the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents prevails. The writ petition also stands abated and the same is dismissed as such. The L.P.A. Succeeds to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.