SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 2005 calling in question the judgments and decrees dated 31-7-1996 of the trial Court and the first appellate Court dated 6-7-2004 respectively.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the instant appeal is barred by limitation. In this context, I have noticed that an application in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, and perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reveals that the same was passed on 6-7-2004. It appears that the application for procuring the certified copy thereof was filed on 27-9-2004; the copies were prepared on 19-10-2004 and delivered to the appellant on 23-12-2004. If the period between the preparation and delivery of the copy is excluded, then this appeal is within time and vice versa, it would be deemed as time-barred. The aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of one Nasar Ullah Khan, stated to be an employee of the appellant, and the contents of the said affidavit are as under: "That I am the employee of Sargodha Improvement Trust, Sargodha, I persue the cases of SIT Sargodha. Copies of the documents were applied well in time by the deponent well in time.
That the copying agency Sargodha prepared some documents before the delivery date, no notice or intimation was given to the deponent in spite of query by the deponent."
3. It is a matter of common practice and in the normal course of events, the copying agency invariably mentions on the chit, the expected date on which the copy would be ready, and in case it is not prepared/ready by that time, such date is extended further subsequently, by the copying agency. The said chit is conspicuous by its absence from the record.
4. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan dealing with similar controversy in the case reported as Iftikhar Ali v. Sh. Abdul Rashid and others 2003 SCM R 1560 observed in paragraph 4 as hereunder: "Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned has no answer as in the said application, it was not disclosed as to the date which was indicated to the petitioner on the chit issued by the copying agency to obtain certified copy because that would have been the determining factor, because originally in routine on the Chit, date is indicated by the copying agency, on which date the applicable is required to inquire from the copying agency about the readiness of the copy. If the same was not ready on the said date, then the question would have arisen whether further notice should be given to the petitioner or not, therefore, in our view even if the reasons given by the learned Judge of the High Court that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable are ignored and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered, the same has no factual basis as no pleading was made as observed above as to the date which was given to the petitioner originally to procure copy from the copying agency."
5. Respectfully agreeing with the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan (supra), it is clear and obvious that the appeal is barred by limitation and the explanation offered is not tenable in law. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as time-barred.