Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 2072 of 1986, decided on 28th October, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 5, 12 & Art. 152‑‑Appeal dismissed as time‑barred‑‑Period of limitation expiring during vacation ‑‑Effect‑‑Delay‑‑Condonation of‑‑Where time prescribed for filing appeal against order of Trial Court had expired during vacations, appeal against such order, held, could be filed on first day on re‑opening of Court after vacations‑‑Although certified copies were ready for delivery within vacations detaining thereof after re‑opening of Court and filing appeal after five days of re‑opening of Court would not entitled appellant for condonation of delay‑‑Revision being devoid of force was dismissed in circumstances.

Rasul Bakhsh v. Ghulam Qadir and other P L D 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 741 rel.

Asghar Hamid Bhutta for Petitioner.

A suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction was filed by Muhammad Anwar respondent against the petitioner and others which was decreed in his favour by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree, dated 23‑6‑1985. An appeal filed by the petitioner there against was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment, dated 9‑10‑1985 on the sole ground that the same was time‑barred. Hence, this revision petition.

2. I have perused the record and have heard the arguments. As stated above the decree of the learned Civil Judge is dated 23‑6‑1985. The appeal was filed on 5‑9‑1985. The application for obtaining the certified copies was made on 17‑7‑1985. The copies were ready for delivery on 18‑8‑1985. ‑ However, the petitioner obtained the copies on 3‑9‑1985 and then filed the appeal on 5‑9‑1985. There is no dispute that the civil Courts were closed from 1‑8‑1985 to 31‑8‑1985. An application for condonation of delay was also filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court. The said application and the appeal were taken up together. The application was dismissed and the appeal was as a consequence dismissed as time‑barred.

3. Taking at first the averments made in the application for condonation of delay it may be pointed out that the facts stated therein were quite wrong. A plea was taken that although the arguments were hear' on 23‑6‑1985 the case was adjourned to 18‑7‑1985 for orders. Thi‑0 is absolutely wrong as has been pointed out by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment, dated 9‑10‑1985. Both the learned counsel for the parties were present and they addressed their agreements on 23‑6‑1985 and the judgment was announced on the same date meaning that it was announced in open Court in the presence of the parties. The question of the adjournment of case to 18‑7‑1985, therefore, does not arise. Apart from that, as pointed out in the appeal judgment, the petitioners had got prepared the memo of appeal etc. on 27‑7‑1985 which gave her a knowledge that the suit had been decided on 23‑6‑1985 and not on any other date. Again even if the date of announcement of judgment were taken by her to be 18‑7‑1985 that would make no difference because there was enough time for her to apply for copies and to file the appeal within time. The, question of condonation of delay, therefore, does not arise and the application for condonation of delay was rightly dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the Courts were closed during the month of August, 1985, as usual, all the 31 days of that month need be excluded from the period of limitation. This plea is not tenable in law. He has referred to 34 All. 41 and 12

I.C. 183. Both these cases are one and the same and are titled Khub Chand v. Harmukh Rai. Even in that case it was not held that whole of the period of vacations had to be excluded from or added to the period of limitation. The more clear law on the point is contained in Rasul Bakhsh v. Ghulam Qadir and other P L D 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 741. It has been made clear in the same that when the period of limitation expires during the vacations the matter would be within time if it is instituted on the first day on the re‑opening of the Court after the vacations. On the analogy of law laid down therein the certified copies should have been obtained by the petitioner on 1‑9‑1985. She obtained the same on 3‑9‑1985 and as such last two days the benefit of which cannot be available to her in accordance with the law laid down in the last mentioned ruling. Again the appeal was filed on 5‑9‑1985 although A it could be filed, especially when every thing was ready for the same, on 3‑9‑1985 and even on 4‑9‑1985. In fact under the law laid down therein the copies should have been obtained earlier and the appeal should have been filed on 1‑9‑1985. In any case the delay that occurred for non‑filing of the appeal on 3‑9‑1985 and on 4‑9‑1985 cannot in any case be ignored. The appeal was, therefore, barred by time and was rightly dismissed by the learned appellate Court. This revision petition is dismissed in limine.

H . B . T . / 647 / L Revision 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.