1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. The present revision application is directed against the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 49/95 by the First Additional District Judge, Karachi West. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed from the order passed by the Second Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West in Execution No. 4/93.
Briefly the facts are that Noor Muhammad who in the present revision application has been shown as respondent, describing him as "Noor Muhammad son of Rahim Bux through his legal heirs, Mst.
Shakoorun, Mehdi Hassan, A.I Hussain and Asghar", had filed the suit against the appellant and one Syed Fanoos under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the property in dispute.
During pendency of the suit Noor Muhammad expired and his legal representatives were joined as party. The suit was decreed. Subsequently the legal representatives of Noor Muhammad filed execution application, wherein the applicant raised several objections which were overruled and, writ of possession was ordered to be issued. The applicant preferred an appeal as stated above which was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the order passed by the execution Court, allowing the execution was a nullity in the eye of law as the decree-holder had fa;led to comply with the directions dated 1-3-1994 requiring them to produce death certificate of late Noor Muhammad and also place on record certificate of heirship of the legal heirs.
However, when the learned counsel for the applicant was asked as to under what law the L.Rs. Of the deceased were under legal obligation to produce death certificate or heirship certificate, he was not in position to point out any law on the subject. He, however, placed reliance on Khadija Begum and others v. Gulzar Ahmad PLD 1969 Kar. 141 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court with reference to section 214 of the Succession Act read with section 47 of the C.P.C. Has observed that in case where the decree-holder dies after obtaining the decree there is consensus of judicial opinion that the legal representatives should obtain succession certificate before proceeding with the execution of the decree. Without entering into the issue of applicability of the said rule, in view of the existing state of law, suffice it to say. That the said rule is not in any manner attracted to the facts of the present case, as admittedly the plaintiff had died during pendency of the suit.
Learned counsel further contended that the learned lower Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal being barred by time, as according to him where the order is a nullity the Appellate Authority would be competent to entertain and decide on merit even a time-barred appeal against such order. However, learned Advocate for the applicant has not been able to point out any factor, which would render the orders passed by the trial Court or first Appellate Court, nullity in the eyes of law. The only submission made by him in this regard has been already overruled hereinabove.
3. In view of the above this application is dismissed as having become infructuous