' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.-- This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 has been directed against the judgment dated 22-11-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the order dated 29-1-1995 passed by respondents has been set aside.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in September, 1994. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, under a Scheme duly approved by the Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Co-operative Societies, invited applications through advertisement in daily newspapers for the supply of tractors under "Awami Tractor Scheme" on First Come First Serve Basis. The respondent/petitioner applied for URSUS-2812 tractor on the prescribed form and deposited Rs,20,040 as self-contribution and charges for comprehensive insurance/assurance of the tractor, besides a sum of Rs,5,000 along with the application. Thereafter the petitioner also mortgaged his land through a registered Deed, as security, for the loan amounting to Rs,130,560 payable in the next ten years. After the completion of formalities the Sub-Manager of the Multan-Branch issued an order dated 26-1-1995 in Loan- case No,227615, to Messrs Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Limited (respondent No,4) for the supply of URSUS- 2812 tractor to the respondent-petitioner. When the respondent-petitioner approached respondents Nos.4 and 5, he was informed that the appellants-respondent had cancelled the supply-order vide letter dated 29-1-1995 because of change in the policy, according to which, the supply from onward was to be made through random balloting. It is not disputed that the respondent-petitioner also participated in the balloting but could not succeed. The respondent- petitioner floated another Scheme, which, as per advertisement published in daily newspaper "Khabrain" Lahore dated 25-2-1995, was exclusively meant for those, who could not succeed in the balloting. This time the petitioner applied for a Fiat-480 tractor but even this time the respondent- petitioner remained unsuccessful in the balloting. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent-petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of the order dated 29-1-1995, whereby the supply-order dated 26-1-1995, was cancelled. The respondent-petitioner also expressed his willingness to purchase a Fiat 480-S tractor in case it was not found feasible for the appellant/respondent to supply URSUS-2812 tractor but under the same policy of "First Come, First Serve Basis" and in lieu of the earlier supply-order. The main ground of attack was that under the supply-order dated 26-1-1995 the petitioner had been invested with a legal right to have the supply of the tractor, as such, the impugned order dated 29-1-1995, being arbitrary, was ineffective upon his . Rights, which had accrued through supply order dated 26-1-1995. The learned Single Judge in Chamber applying the doctrine of locus poenitentiae was pleased to hold that the subsequent decision of the appellants-respondent to supply the tractors through random balloting was unjustified and the appellants-respondents were not competent to vary the conditions given in the advertisement. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order-dated 29-1-1995.
' Consequently, although not so specifically directed respondents Nos.4 and 5 to supply the tractor as per supply-order dated 26-1-1995. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner, at the very outset, objected to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground of limitation. The impugned judgment is dated 22-11-2001. Whereas the instant appeal was filed on 7-1-2002. Admittedly, the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of 20 days. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellants were not required to append a copy of the impugned judgment with the Memorandum of Appeal, as such, the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment shall not be excluded and the appeal being barred by time, is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on AIR 1935 Lahore 328; PLD 1967 Karachi 537 and 1987 MLD 2736 (Lahore).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, relying upon another Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of " Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited., Lahore v. Official Liquidators, Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation) and others AIR 1941 Lahore 257 argued that the appellants are entitled to deduct time requisite for obtaining copy of judgment appealed from even though under rules and orders of High Court no copy is required to be filed with memo. Of appeal. He also argued that by virtue of an amendment in the High Court Rules and Orders in Volume 4-V, Chapter 1-A, rule 4 (published in the Gazette of Punjab, Part JII dated 8th August, 2001) the time for obtaining copy of the judgment appealed against would be excluded. As such, the objection regarding limitation cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellants, while touching the merits of the case argued that the appellants had floated the Scheme under the direction of the Federal Government.
He submitted that after the publication of the advertisement inviting applications under the Scheme, a meeting was held in the Prime Minister Secretariat Islamabad on 15-11-1994, in which, keeping in view the large number of applications as compared to the availability of the tractors, the policy was changed and the selection of the applicants were to be made through computer draw. In January-1995 out of the two consignments of URSUS-2812 tractor only 10 tractors were allocated to Multan District for allotment out of which the Sub-Manager of Multan Branch allotted one tractor to respondent-petitioner on 26-1-1995 but on the same day the allocation of 10 tractors made to Multan District was cancelled by the Head Office vide letter dated 26-1-1995. Pursuant to this letter, the local Office had no option but to cancel the supply order. He, relying upon the case of Shahid Masood Nadeem reported in 2003 PLC (CS) 1262, argued that the supply-order dated 26-1- 1995 had not been given effect, as such, it was lawful for the appellants to cancel or withdraw the same and the doctrine of locus poentitentiae would not be attracted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the supply-order was issued after the completion of formalities by the petitioner, as such, a vested right had accrued in favour of the respondent-petitioner, which could not be subsequently taken away by any change.
6. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The issuance of supply-order by the Sub-Manager of local Branch is not in dispute. Certainly the respondent had become entitled to obtain delivery of the tractor but before this order could be given effect, it was recalled pursuant to a change 'in the policy. Had the respondent obtained delivery of the tractor, he could have enjoyed the protection under the doctrine of locus poentitentiae but before that this principle would not be of any consequence, as such, the impugned order dated 29-1-1995 should not have been set aside.
8. Another important point, which requires consideration by us, is that the "Awami Tractor Scheme" floated by the appellants under a policy formulated by the Federal Government under which the URSUS tractor were imported by respondent No,5 for onward supply to the small land owners is no more in existence. The supply order issued in the year 1995 cannot be given .Effect, as such, this Court would refrain from giving a declaration without consequence. Admittedly, the agreement dated 19-1-1995, for the enforcement of which the respondent-petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, empowers the appellants to cancel the same without assigning any reason, as such, this Court, in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, would feel reluctant to provide relief to the respondent-petitioner for breach of any condition. In the circumstances of the case, it was not possible to enforce the supply order dated 26-1-1995, as such, the relief in the form. Of a declaration alone would not be appropriate. In a similar case arising out of the same Scheme (Writ Petition No,1152 of 1995 decided on 28-2-1995) a learned Single Judge of this Court declined to give any relief to the petitioner. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the obligations arising out of a contract of this nature cannot be enforced by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order cannot be suspended. In view of the aforementioned amendments of the High Court Rules and Orders and the question involved in this petition, we hold this appeal to be within time.
' Under the above discussion, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 22-11-2001. No order as to costs.