1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.-This revision application has been filed against the judgment, dated 6-12- 2006 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Karachi (East) whereby Civil Appeal No,117 of 2004 filed by the applicant against the judgment of lower Court has beendismissed. The reasons prevailing upon the Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal are as follows:-- "It is quite clear that the judgment was passed on 29-3-2004 and the decree was prepared on the same date. The appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 31-3-2004. He deposited the cost on 12-4-2004. The copy was ready and compared on 10-4-204. After comparing the copy the appellant collected the same on 24-4-2004 and he has tiled the appeal on 22-5- 2004, which shows that the appeal is time-barred by 13 days. There is no sufficient explanation of such delay and learned counsel was bound to advise the appellant properly about the Limitation Act. In the light of above calculation and citations 1975 SCM R 157 and 2003 SCM R 1560 appeal appears time barred, hence the instant appeal is dismissed as time-barred with no order as to cost."
2. ' Now the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment was passed by Civil Judge on 29-3-2004 and application for certified copy was made on 31-3-2004, cost was deposited on 12-4-2004 and copy was delivered on 24-4-2004. He submits that if time is counted from the date of delivery then appeal was within time which was filed on 22-5-2004. Learned counsel has relied upon 2003 SCM R 176 on the ground that no notice was sent by the copyist regarding readiness of the judgment, therefore, time is to be counted from the date of delivery. It has been observed from the impugned judgment that learned Court, while dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation, has relied upon 1975 SCM R 157 and 2003 SCM R 1560. The learned Court was of the opinion that although judgment was passed on 29-3-2004 but copy was applied on 31-3-2004 and cost was deposited on 12-4-2004 while copy was made ready on 16-4-2004. Therefore, appeal was barred by 13 days, as time was counted from the date when copy was made ready.
3. ' I myself have perused copy of the impugned judgment, passed by the civil Court whereby it appears from the notings of the copyist that the date of application and estimation of fee is 31-3- 2004 while fee was deposited on 12-4-2004. Thee is no explanation as to why fee was deposited after 12 days and why not earlier, hence, in my opinion time from 31-3-2004 to 12-4-2004 was also not available to the applicant. Time stopped from 12-4-2004 till copy was made ready on 16-4- 2004 but it was obtained by the applicant on 24-4-2004. In all there is two days delay in making application for certified copy and thereafter 12 days delay in deposit of fee and 8 days delay in collection of certified copy. Therefore, all these days cannot be excluded from the limitation.
4. ' According to section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, only that time is .Excluded from limitation period provided under the law which isrequisite for obtaining the copies. For ready reference section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is reproduced hereunder:--
(12) Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. (1) in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded.
(2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded.
(3) Where a decree is appealed from or sought to be reviewed the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which it is founded shall also be excluded.
(4) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall also be excluded.
(5) For the purpose of subsections (2), (3) and (4) the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence, order, judgment or award shall be deemed to be the time intervening between the day on which an application for the copy is made and the day actually intimated to the applicant to be the day on which the copy will be ready for delivery."
5. ' According to above section relaxation has been given only for intervening period consumed in obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order/judginent etc. A bare perusal of the said subsection will show that only such time has been excluded which is being actually consumed by copyist in preparation of copy. Any delay attributed to the applicant extending thereby time in preparation of copy cannot be counted towards copyist nor can add towards extension of limitation.
6. ' After calculation of delay in making of application, deposit of fee and receipt of copy, it seems that appeal was not bared by 13 days as observed by the Appellate Court but it was barred by about 20 days as the same was filed on 22-5-2004. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable. The said authority has defined section 12(5) of the Limitation Act and the plea of learned counsel that Copying Branch has not issued notice to the petitioner for collection of certified copy was accepted. On the other hand, the authority relied upon by the learned Court i,e, 2003 SCMR 156 is relevant as applicant could not satisfy the Court regarding intimation of any date by the copyist. Nor any receipt towards deposit of cost, which also contains date of delivery, has been filed by the appellant.
7. ' Here in the instant case and specially in Karachi the practice is that an application for certified copy is sent to the copyist who estimates the fee which is to be deposited on the same day and thereafter tentative date is intimated to the applicant on that very day and a receipt towards cost of copy is also issued bearing date of delivery, while no written notice is given by the copyist and normally copy is made available on the date intimated on the day of receipt of cost. In the instant case the date of application and estimation of copy fee is same i,e, 31-3-2004 but after estimation of fee, learned counsel did not bother to deposit the same for about 12 days and appeared before the copyist on 12-4-2004 and deposited fee. Thereafter copy was prepared on 16-4-2004 but was not collected by the applicant till 24-4-2004. Learned counsel has not filed any receipt of the copyist to show as to whether any date for collection of copy was given to him or not. Therefore, the date which has been mentioned in the judgment by the copyist are correct and if calculated then appeal filed on 22-5-2004 before the District Judge was barred by 20 days as the delay on the part of the applicant towards deposit of copying cost and further delay in collection of certified copy cannot be condoned and that period cannot be excluded from the limitation time provided under section 12 of Limitation Act. If this procedure and method of calculation is not followed and discretion in respect of limitation will go to the copyist or the applicant and to extend the time one will deposit the copy fee late and will also collect late according to his own choice which is not the intention of law and other side cannot be kept hanging at the discretion of opposite party. In the circumstances, appeal was rightly dismissed by the appellate Court, hence the judgment impugned in this revision cannot be interfered. Resultantly this Revision, application is dismissed.
8. This revision was dismissed by short order on 30-4-2007 in limine and above are the reasons.
9. ' These are the reasons of short order, dated 30-4-2007.