' For the order, I propose to pass in this case, I do not deem it necessary to refer to the pleaded facts, suffice it to say that feeling aggrieved of a judgment and decree dated 7-12-2000 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant filed R.F.A. No.334 of 2001 in this Court. It remained pending when on 29-10-2002 it was remitted back to the learned District Judge, Multan, because of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court. The appeal was then entrusted to a learned ADJ, Multan, who heard the appeal and found that it was barred by time and dismissed the same accordingly vide judgment and decree date 22-10-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contend that the learned ADJ has not only acted illegally but without lawfully authority while dismissing the first appeal on the said ground. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the judgment and decree impugned in the first appeal was passed by the learned trial Court on 7-12-2000. The copy was applied for on 11-12-2000. It was prepared on 25-1-2001 and delivered on 6-2-2001. The R.F.A. Was filed in this Court on 19-4-2001. It will, thus, be seen that even calculating the time from the date of preparation, the R.F.A. Was filed in this Court before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. The office raised objection on 26-4-2001 that court-fee of Rs.15,000 is payable and the printing charges of Rs.250 are to be deposited within seven days.
The objection memo. Does not disclose as to when the case was taken back and when it was refiled. However, the note by the Treasury on the back of the court-fee stamps does show that these were issued on 12-5-2001. Thereafter, there is a note dated 2-6-2001 that objection No.8 has not been removed. Again, it is not discernible as to when the case was taken back. However, it was filed on 22-9-2001. The receipt shows that the printing charges were deposited on 10-9-2001. The office, however, directed the appellant to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the case had been re-filed with a lapse of about 112 days. An application was accordingly filed.
4. No substantial proceedings took place in the R.F.A. While it was in this Court. It was taken up for limine hearing on 20-1-2003 and was admitted to hearing by the learned ADJ, Multan.
5. Now, it has been stated in the said application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, that the affairs of the appellant-Corporation were in a disarray and as such the printing charges could not be deposited within the time specified by the office.
6. Now the learned ADJ has somehow or the other presumed that the appeal was filed after the expiry of period of limitation and thereafter referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1998 SCM R 307 that no special consideration is to be shown to the Government in the matter of limitation. The learned ADJ had completely lost sight of the fact that the R.F.A. Was filed in time. The court-fee was also deposited as directed. So far as the printing charges are concerned, the deposit thereof was not at all a condition precedent or necessary for further progress of the case. He also failed to see that in the present appeal till the time the case was sent to the learned District Judge no printing had taken place and, in fact, no order of the Court is there for printing of the records. Thus, the late deposit of printing charges hardly constituted a ground to dismiss the appeal, admittedly filed within time in the Court as barred by time. This R.S.A is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-10-2003 of learned ADJ, Multan, is set aside. The result would be that the first appeal filed by the appellant shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Multan, before whom the parties shall appear on 18-1-2005. The records shall also be remitted back to the learned District Judge along with a copy of this judgment. The learned District Judge may proceed himself or entrust the appeal to the learned ADJ who shall hear the parties and decide the appeal on its merit after examining the records. No. Order as to costs.
7. Since the first appeal was dismissed on a ground which was not at all available in law and the case is being remanded, I hereby direct the office to issue a Certificate for the refund of court-fee paid on the memo. Of this R.S.A. To the appellant against receipt.