Vide order dated 4-5-1992, the learned Member, Board of Revenue had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and thus maintained the order of the Revenue Courts below regarding impleadment of legal heirs of deceased Jan Muhammad,, during the pendency of appeal before the A.C./Collector. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Jan Muhammad died on 2-7-1986, whereas appeal was filed against him in the year 1990 and, therefore, the same was incompetent, having been filed against the dead person. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has observed that as soon as the respondents, came to know about the death of Jan Muhammad, they sought permission to implead the legal heirs of the deceased, which was granted by the Collector and there was no illegality in the said order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the same argument i.e. the appeal having been filed against dead person was incompetent. Case relates to mutation of inheritance and at that time when themutation was sanctioned, Jan Muhammad was alive. He died subsequently. It was only just and proper for A.C./Collector, who was seized of the appeal, whereunder the correctness of the mutation had been assailed, to permit the heirs of Jan Muhammad, to be brought on record. This ,was eminently just order. Decision of a lis on merits is called for unless such a course is specifically prohibited by law or by the conduct of the party itself. If writ is issued to quash the orders impugned herein, it would be in aid of injustice. Even otherwise cause title of appeal can be amended so as to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent. See the Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hassan Askary and others (PLD 1971 SC 82).
3. There is no force in this writ petition.
Dismissed in limine.