' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---This civil revision was admitted on 20-2-2004 through a detailed order which re-counted the propositions involved in the present civil revision on the question of F.A.O's. Limitation and also the facts as submitted by the petitioners. The said order is therefore reproduced hereunder:- ' Through this civil revision, petitioners have called inquestion order, dated 5-12-2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dismissing petitioners' application, dated 19-12-2002 for review of the order. The grounds of review as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge and before this Court are that F.A.O. Was filed by the petitioners against the impugnedjudgment and decree, dated 28-6-2003 of the learned trial Judge. This F.A.O.
Was filed on 8-8-2002 against Diary No, 7595. The same was returned with objections which were removed and F.A.O. Was refiled on 18-9-2002 against Diary No, 8577. However, further objections were raised and the F.A.O. Was refiled on 23-11-2002 against Diary No, 10501..
(2) The office thereafter placed the matter before my Lord Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J. To consider office- objections regarding maintainability of the first appeal before this Court under .The Punjab Civil Courts (Amendments) Ordinance, 2002. These objections were upheld and the appeal after amendment was to be filed before the learned Addl. District Judge through order, dated 25-11- 2002.- The petitioners then received the memo of appeal and all its annexures on 28-11-2002. The appeal was refiled before the learned Additional District Judge Sargodha without any loss of time as per the learned counsel for the petitioners. The same was however dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha through judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2002 on the ground of limitation.
(3) The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the same learned Judge and annexed therewith certified copy of the original form to show that F.A.O. In the High Court was filed for the first time on '8-8-2002 and wherefor the period of limitation was to be excluded from 8-8-2002 to 28-11-2002. But the learned Additional District Judge patently misread the record to hold that the appeal was presented before the High Court for the first time on 23-11-2002. It is contended that despite patent error in reading the record added before the learned Additional District Judge, the review petition was dismissed through order, dated 5-12-2003. Hence the present civil revision.
(4) After considering the above submissions, I requisitioned the report from the Deputy. Registrar's Reader (Civil) and also directed production of the record of F.A.O. Along with the diary register.
Examination of the record and the diary register apparently supports the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and so does the report of D.R.R. (Civil).
(5). Under these circumstances, this civil revision is admitted to regular hearing. The respondent shall be notified to appear before this Court on 25-3-2004. The respondent shall be notified through ordinary mode, telegraphically and registered A.D. At the expense of the petitioners.
Necessary expenses shall be deposited within a period of 5 days.
C.M.No,1-C of 2004
(6) Subject to notice for the aforesaid date, proceedings of execution shall remain stayed, in the meanwhile.
2. On notice Mr. Mehfooz-ul-Haq Khan, Advocate appeared for the respondent and stated that the resolution of the controversy between the parties hinges upon as to whether F.A.O. Was filed before this Court by the petitioners on 8-8-2002 against Diary No,7595 or not Having so said the learned counsel, for the respondent admitted that the above said Dairy No was for filing of the appeal on 8- 8-2002. He thus conceded that the petitioners' appeal as filed before this Court was within time And on transmission of the appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners were entitled to the condonation of delay or exclusion of time spent in the High Court. He further stated that in the interest of justice and for the resolution of the lis between the parties on merits, the petitioners appeal be held to be within time in view of their entitlement to the exclusion of time He requested that the order, dated 5-12-2003 dismissing the petitioners' application for review and the judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2002 dismissing the petitioners' appeal as beyond time be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the parties jointly requested that the learned appellate Court be directed to decide this appeal without fail within a period of three months.
4. In view of the concession and request of the learned counsel for the respondents, this civil revision is accepted. The impugned order, dated 5-12-2003 and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2002 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha are set aside. The petitioners are held to be entitled to exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the appeal in this Court and as such the petitioners appeal before the learned District Judge/Additional District Judge is, held to be within the period of limitation. The appeal shall be deemed to be pending and the same shall be decided on merits within a period of three months. Both the learned counsel undertake that their respective parties shall not obstruct or impede the progress of the appeal by seeking unnecessary adjournments. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sargodha on 25-4-2007 who may hear the appeal himself or may assign it for hearing to any learned Additional Judge. The period of three months for decision of the appeal shall commence from the date of first hearing of the appeal by the learned appellate Court. Decided as above without an order as to the costs.