Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Regular Second Appeal No. 425 of 1956, decided on 19th March 1957 from the decree of the Court of Zia Ullah Khan, Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 7th May 1956, affirming that of Zafar Ahsan Mahmud, Civil judge, 4th Class, Lahore, dated the 24th August 1955.
S. 12‑Application stating wrong date of judgment, copy of which was applied for‑Period of time allowed under S. 12 would only begin from the day mistake was corrected.
Application, dated 22nd of August, for a copy of judgment appealed against mentioned the 19th of August as the date of the judgment, whereas, in actual fact the date was the 24th of August. The mistake was corrected only on 30th of August.
Held, that the period between the 24th and the 30th of August could by no stretch of reason, be considered as time requisite for obtaining copies and therefore was not allowable under section 12, Limitation Act.
Mian Muhammad Shafi for the A. G. West Pakistan for Appellant.
S. M. Naseem for Respondent.
This is an appeal against the order and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, dismissing the defendant's appeal before him as barred by time. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on the 24th of August 1955 but an application for its copy was put in on behalf of the appellant two days before, i.e.. on the 22nd of August 1955. asking for a copy of a judgment dated the 19th of August 19:5. It was only on the 30th of August that the application was corrected by giving the date of the judgment as the 24th of August. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that if his client were to be allowed only the period between the 30th of August 1955 and the 11th of October 1955 the date on which the copy was ready and delivered to his client, the last date for filing the appeal would be the 5th of November 1955 and not the 10th of November on which it was actually filed.
Learned counsel, however, contends that as he had already made the application for copy on the 22nd of August the time between the 24th of August, when the judgment was actually delivered, and the 30th of August 1955, should also be allowed as time requisite for obtaining copies under section 12 of the Limitation Act. This contention could not be accepted for the obvious reason that the application made on the 22nd of August 1955 was not at all an application asking for a copy of the judgment of the 24th of August. ‑ The Court had heard the arguments on the 19th and had fixed the 24th for the delivery of the judgment. These facts are apparent from the order sheet and must have, or ought to have, been known to the pairokars of the appellant. If they were negligent in not supplying until the 30th of August the most material particular required in such an application and without which the preparation of a copy could not have been undertaken the appellant must suffer for their negligence. The period between the 24th and the 30th of August can, by no stretch of reason, be considered as time requisite for obtaining copies. There is no application under section 5, Limitation Act, and the appellant's learned counsel has not been able to furnish any explanation as to why the appeal was not filed for a whole month after the copies had been obtained by his client. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
A.H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer