' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- For the order I propose to pass in this RSA, it will not be necessary to refer to the pleaded facts in detail. Suffice it to say that on 8-2-1994 the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,54,755.53 against the appellants. This amount includes the payment for actual supplies as also damages for mental torture and agony, loss of business and loss of reputation. A written statement was filed denying the said allegations. The plea taken was that all the supplies had been paid for. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 6-1-2003 in the sum of Rs.5,04,755.53. This amount is comprised of Rs.4,54,755.53 which was found to be actually due against the supplies made while token damages of Rs.20,000 for loss, of business, Rs.20,000 for loss of reputation and Rs. 10,000 for mental torture. A first appeal against this judgment and decree was filed on 23-5-2003. The^ appeal was barred by time and was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay. Vide judgment and decree dated 16-12-2004 a learned A.D.J., Lahore, dismissed the said application and consequently the first appeal as barred by time.
2, Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned ADJ had relied on the fact that the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was obtained by Mr.Afzal Ansari, Advocate, whereas he was never a counsel for the appellants and had never appeared in the case. According to him, Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate, was the counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has taken me through the order sheet of the learned trial Court to demonstrate that not only Mr. Afzal Ansari, Advocate, appeared for the appellants but had also been acting on their behalf.
3. I have gone through the records of both the learned Courts below. As noted by me above, the appeal was barred by time. The certified copies of the judgment and decree accompanying the appeal were applied for on 21-5-2003 i.c. At a point of time when the prescribed limitation of 30 days had already expired. It was prepared and delivered on the same date while the appeal was filed on 23-5-2003. It was stated in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, that the judgment and decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 6-1-2003 in absence of the learned counsel as the learned trial Court had reserved the judgment. It was then stated that the counsel for the appellants also did not inform them. It was further stated that three days ago, the respondent came to the office of the appellant No.2 and demanded execution of the decree and that is how that they came to know about it. This application was supported by the affidavit of one Sardar Muhammad Khan, Regional Manager,. Utility Stores Corporation, Lahore. The application was resisted by filing a reply which was also supported by the affidavit of the attorney for the respondent. The said contentions were denied. It was stated that the date Of order Was fixed and it was announced accordingly. It was further stated that Mr. Afzal Ansari, Advocate, applied for the certified copies of the judgment and decree dn 18-1-2003. These were prepared and delivered on 4-2-2003. Certified copy of th.e application form was also produced along with the affidavit.
4. A perusal of the said form present at page 41 of the file of the learned ADJ shows Mr. Muhammad Afzal Ansari, Advocate, of Rizvi and Rizvi Chamber, 11-Fane Road, Lahore, applied for copies of the judgment and decree. The application was registered at,No.2688. The copies were prepared and delivered on 4-2-2003.
5. Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants' I find that on 9-10-2001 Mr. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, appeared for the appellants. The same learned counsel also appeared on 22-10-2001 as also on 6-11-2001. Not only this, at pages 915/917 of the trial Court file is an application praying for re-calling of order dated 23-11-2002 closing the evidence of the appellants. It is not only singed by Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate, but also by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Ansari, Advocate. This application is dated 25-11-2002 and is accompanied by an affidavit of said Mr. Muhammad Afzal Ansari, Advocate. This application was not only entertained but later with consent was allowed and the appellants were granted an opportunity to lead evidence. I am, therefore, satisfied that the said Mr. Muhammad Afzal Ansari, Advocate, had been appearing and acting on behalf of the appellants obviously under the instructions of Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate, the counsel for the appellants.
6. The arguments in this case were heard by learned trial Court on 1-1-2003 and the case was adjourned to 6-1-2003 for announcement of orders and it is on this date that the judgment was pronounced and the decree was drawn-up. Learned counsel has cited the case of Ashiq Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab through Collector District, Attock and 6 others (2003 SCM R 1840) to urge that since the learned ADJ had admitted the first appeal to regular hearing and issued notice, it shall be deemed that the delay has been condoned. I am afraid the circumstances in which the said judgment was rendered are not at all in existence in the present case. In the said case, the appeal was, in fact, allowed after hearing both the parties and the observations were made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the context of peculiar facts of the said case where the allegation was that possibility of the collusion between the Government officials and the plaintiffs decree- holder cannot be ruled out. Here there is no such allegation. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, cites the case of Ghulam Rasool and others v. Ahmad Yar and others (2006 SCM R 1458) which fully supports him inasmuch as the precise contention being raised that the counsel did not inform the appellants was repelled.
7. Having examined the records, I do find that the learned ADJ has decided the question of limitation in accordance with the law. The RSA is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.