Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 267 of 1967, decided on 6th October 1967.

(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th May 1967, in L. P. A. No. 856 of 1966).

S. 12(2)‑Copy of judgment applied for on same day on which judgment delivered‑Contention that in such event that day should be counted twice over for exclusion in computing period of limitation‑Not accepted.

Balkrishna Rajaram Modi v. Baijnath Girdharilal Tiwari and others A I R 1939 Nag. 150 not approved.

Ata Muhammad v. Pir Khan A I R 1924 Lah. 599 ref.

S. Aftab Husain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Zamir Zaidi; Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 6th October 1967.

‑This petition for Special Leave to Appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing in limine a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a writ petition under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, is according to the office note, barred by one day.

Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has filed no application for condonation of delay but seeks to contend that the petition is in time, because, in this case the copy of the order had been applied for on the same day that the judgment of the Court was delivered. In such an event, according to him, on a proper interpretation of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act that day should be counted twice over, because, it is both the day on which the judgment complained of Was pronounced and the day from which time began to run for obtaining a copy of the order appealed from. In support of this contention he has also relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Balkrishna Rajaram Modi v. Baijnath Girdharilal Tiwari and others (

) wherein two of the three learned Judges, who dealt with the case, supported the view sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel dissenting from an earlier decision of the same High Court and a decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Ata Muhammad v. Pir Khan (

). We, however, find ourselves unable to agree with the majority view taken in the Nagpur case. It could not have been the intention of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act that the same day should be excluded twice. This sub sectional reads as follows :‑----

(2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for ail appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judge merit complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded."

Even on merits this petition must, in our view, fail. The writ in the High Court was filed to challenge the validity of an order of the Settlement Authorities refusing to transfer a portion of a property in Multan city which was declared by the Settle ment Authorities to be a composite property consisting of residential portions and shops. The petitioner claimed that the ground floor of the said premises could not have been declared to be shops, because, they are as a matter of fact living rooms and that the entire property should have been transferred to him. He was transferred only the upper floor which was declared to be a residential portion.

It is conceded by the learned counsel that the premises were declared to be composite premises but the only point that is urged in support of this petition is that the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner was barred by time and hence the entire subsequent proceedings before the Statement Authorities were void and without jurisdiction. It appears, however, that this point was not raised before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Hence the Superior Settlement Authorities refused to allow this point to be raised before them in revision and in second revision. Again, this point NN as not pressed either before the learned Single Judge in the High Court or before the Letters Patent Bench. In the circumstances, this point cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court.

The petitioner has got the major portion of the property which was in his possession. No injustice appears to have been done to him. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.