Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 42‑R of 1984, decided on 14th April, 1984:

(Against the Judgment and Order, dated 6‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in R.S.A. No.316 of 1979).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Petitioner's second appeal dismissed as being time‑barred‑‑No explanation offered for delay nor any application made for its condonation ‑‑Petitioner's counsel also not able to satisfy Supreme Court on material points‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th April, 1984.

.‑‑ The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑12‑1983 whereby their second appeal was dismissed as time‑barred by 129 days with no explanation for the delay and no application for its condonation.

The predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner was the recorded owner of land of which the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent was the recorded occupancy tenant. There were in all 11 proceedings instituted first in the revenue hierarchy against the attestation of a mutation under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act following enactment of Act VII of 1952. By mutation, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent was dealt with as an occupancy tenant and made owner of proportionate share of the property. The Revenue Authorities referred the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners to the civil Court for determination of their title and interest in the property. In this background 11 suits were instituted for a declaration that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents had abandoned his tenancy about 35 years before the institution of the suit and had ceased to be a occupancy tenant and was not entitled to benefit under Act VII of 1952. By a consolidated judgment the suit was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed. In second appeal on 29‑6‑1977, the High Court remanded the case to the District Judge the first appellate Court for recording separate judgments. The District Judge recorded a separate judgment whereby the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. They filed a second appeal and at the hearing an objection was taken that it was barred by 129 days. The petitioners were unable to offer any explanation for it and it was dismissed as time‑barred.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the judgment of the District Judge was announced on 23‑4‑1978. The petitioners applied for a copy on 3‑5‑1978. It was supplied to them on 28‑8‑1978. The Regular Second Appeal was filed on 14‑11‑1978. There was no objection from any quarter with regard to the limitation or its being time‑barred. For the first time such an objection was taken during the course of the arguments on 6‑12‑1983 and prevailed. The petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity to explain the delay and were taken completely unawares.

We find that although the learned counsel for the petitioners is aware of all the dates but one material date he does not know. It is the date of preparation of the copy of the judgment of the District; Judge applied for on 3‑5‑1978. The limitation will start from the date of the preparation of the copy unless the petitioners were able to show that in fact the date on which they took delivery of the copy was given to them or no date for taking delivery of the copy was given to them. As the learned counsel is not able to satisfy us even now on these points, we are not surprised that he was not in a position to satisfy the learned Judge in the High Court also. In the absence of any such material, we do not find any merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.

S.Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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