Find a Lawyer

S. 115‑Revision‑Appeal of petitioner dismissed by appellate Court for being time‑barred ‑‑- Explanation regarding limitation never put forth before Courts below‑Held, cannot be allowed to be urged for first time in revision.

Masood Shahreyar for Petitioner.

Faizanul Haq for Respondent. ‑

Date of hearing : 27th May, 1982.

This revision application is directed against the judgment of District Judge, Karachi, dated 21st February, ‑ 1981 whereby he dismissed the appeal summarily as time‑barred. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that summons issued in Suit No. 152/80, shows that the suit was instituted in the Court of 4th Civil Judge First Class, Karachi, whereas actually the suit was proceeding before the 5th Civil Judge, Karachi and the applicant had no notice of the same. From the R & P of the suit file it appears that the, plaint was initially filed in the Court of IV Civil Judge, Karachi but was returned for presentation to proper Court on 12th April, 1981. Thereafter it was issued from the Court of I V Civil Judge, Karachi, but the summons issued in the suit and served on defendant/applicant show that it was issued from the Court of IV Civil Judge, Karachi. It is not disputed that the summons were duly served on the applicant for 26th May, 1980 but it is contended that on 26th May, 1980 when the applicant appeared before the 4th Civil Judge, Karachi, he was informed that the file was not traceable and therefore his Advocate left the Vakalatnama with the Sharestadar of that Court and was later informed that no such suit, was pending in that Court. However, the diary of the case before the V Civil Judge, Karachi, shows that Mr. Shamshad Lari, Advocate appeared in the Court and filed his Vakalatnama in the case. The original Vakalatnama filed on behalf of applicant is also available on the file of the suit. There was no allegation either before the first appellate Court or before the Trial Court that the diary written by the Civil Judge on 26th May, 1980 was not correctly recorded or that the appellant's Advocate had ‑not appeared before him. In these circumstances the first appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal as time‑barred as the period of limitation for filing the appeal started running from the date of decree and not from the date of know. ledge. The explanation now offered in this revision by the applicant was never put forth before the Courts below and therefore it, cannot be allowed to be urged for the first time in this revision. There is no substance in A this revision which is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I will make no order as to costs.

S. Q. Application 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.