' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.-- Instant civil revision assailed the judgment/decrees dated 14- 3-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din whereby delay in filing appeal by the respondent was condoned.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the respondent filed suit for possession through pre-emption against the sale of land measuring 93 Kanals, 10 Marlas claiming himself to be "Shafi Sharik" and "Shafi Khalit". The respondent had asserted,. Due performance of all "Talbs" envisaged by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 on gaining of knowledge of sale. Respondent's suit was contested by the petitioners being vendees of the suit-land which was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 13-1-1999.
3. Respondent being aggrieved of the decision of his suit, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge Mandi Baha-ud-Din on 11-2-1999, which was initially entertained but was returned on 28-6- 2000 on the ground that valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was Rs,2,16,347 being beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court respondent after getting certified copy of the application moved by him for amendment of the plaint and that of memorandum of appeal filed R.F.A. Before this Court on 4-7-2000. Respondent was supplied certified copies of his application and memorandum of appeal on 1-7-2000 which was Saturday and the next day being Sunday he engaged his counsel for filing R.F.A. On 3-7-2000. Respondent along with his appeal filed an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and prayed condonation of delay by narrating the entire background of the case. The R.F.A. Filed by the petitioner before this Court was ultimately remitted to the learned District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din for decision on merits on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court. Respondent's appeal was entrusted to the learned Additional District, who vide his order, dated 14-3-2006 accepted the application of the respondent and condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs, I ,000. Petitioners have now filed instant revision petition for adjudgment of order of the Appellate Court, condoning the delay in filing appeal by the respondent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners have examined the record, appended herewith. Besides the lawful reasons which weighed with the learned Additional District Judge, in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it is settled law that an appeal lies against the decree which in the case in hand, contained valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction as Rs,24,000. Keeping in view this valuation which though was incorrectly mentioned on the decree sheet, out of inadvertence yet misled the respondent and his counsel to file the appeal before the learned District Judge. Respondent has no doubt mentioned valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction in the chart drawn on the memorandum of appeal before the learned District Judge, as Rs,2,16,347/10 but it had no relevance because the decree appealed against carried a valuation of Rs,24,000. Respondent had not only filed his appeal before the learned District Judge within in 30 days of limitation as compared to the limitation of 90 days provided for filing of R.F.A. Before this Court but had also affixed a court-fee of Rs,15,000 on the memorandum of appeal. Staff of the learned District Judge headed by "Clerk of Court", scrutinized the appeal filed by the respondent and no objection regarding its maintainability there, was raised. The learned District Judge himself after hearing preliminary agreements, issued notice to the respondent in the appeal and kept the same pending with him from 11-2-1999 to 28-6-2000 when the same was ordered to be returned.
Respondent had diligently done everything within the limitation prescribed by law and no mala fide could be attributed to him in tiling appeal before the learned District Judge. As a matter of fact he or his counsel was genuinely misled by valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction mentioned on the face of the decree-sheet as Rs,24,000 and thereafter by indolent act of staff and that of the learned District Judge, delay under consideration occasioned. Had some objection been raised at the time of entertaining of appeal this delay could have been availed. There was no impediment in the way of the respondent to approach this Court instantly because at the time of filing appeal before the District Courts he had to his credit 61 days for filing the R.F.A. It is settled law that no litigant should suffer for act/omission of the Court and the having no participation to incorrect mentioning of valuation on the decree-sheet, could not be punished by throwing his appeal as barred by limitation.
5. Looking from another angle, the respondent initially filed the appeal before the learned District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din within 30 days which was ultimately returned on 28-6-2000 and on filing of R.F.A. Before this Court, the same was again remitted to the learned District Judge on account of amendment in section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and in this manner, adjudication of question of limitation was only an academic exercise. For all these reasons, I am not ready to contribute to the view that there was deliberate negligence on part of the respondent in filing the appeal before the learned District Judge and since over all conclusion drawn through impugned order is just/lawful, the same deserved no interference.
6. Besides the reasons noted above, scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy regarding condonation of delay was correctly put to rest by the Appellate Court, without committing any illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition, consequently, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.