M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal filed on I-8-1977 by the appellant an ex- Secretary, Union Council, District Jhang, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Government Pleader that the appeal is barred by time.
2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in this case the initial order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, on 5-11-1976, and the appeal against the same was rejected by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, on 24-5-1977, and the appellant got the certified copy of the impugned order on the 27th of May, 1977, and thus the present appeal filed by the appellant on 1-8- 1977, was barred by time. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the application for the condonation of delay has also failed to make out any case for enlarging the time.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in the application it has been explained that the appellant had requested his counsel before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, to obtain a copy of the order and to supply him at Jhang, but due to political agitation in the country, he failed to do so. Eventually, the petitioner himself obtained the copy of the order of Commissioner, Sargodha Division, but was still prevented from filing appeal due to catastrophic floods in river Chenab. Moreover, the petitioner remained confined to bed due to illness from 23-6- 1977 to 30-7-1977 and was thus unable to file the appeal. Furthermore, Martial Law was imposed in the country on the 5th of July, 1977 and the appellant was under the impression that the Courts in the country had suspended their functions. The appellant also advanced the plea that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was void as he was not competent to act as Authorised Officer himself and, therefore, there was no question of limitation in this case as held by the Lahore High Court in its decision reported as PLD 1970 Lah.
6. With these reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for the extension of the time. The learned Government Pleader in rebuttal relied upon Sharif Ahmad Hashmi's case (1978 SCMR 367).
4. After careful consideration of the respective contentions raised by the parties, we find that the arguments of the appellant based on the decision of Lahore High Court did not hold good inasmuch as the Supreme Court of Pakistan clearly laid down that even the void orders are only a type of illegal orders which had to be set aside. In our view the Supreme Court authority cited by the Government Pleader is clearly applicable to this case., We accordingly repel the contention of the appellant. Even on merits, we find that the appellant produced no cogent evidence to substantiate his plea of floods, illness and closing of Courts due to Martial Law.
5. In the first instance, nothing was produced before us to prove the gravity of floods and we are also not prepared to believe that Sargodha or Jhang, at any stage, were cut off from Lahore. The plea of illness only covered a short span of 8 days only. Even that plea remained unsubstan-- tiated by any acceptable evidence. Similarly, the plea of the appellant regarding suspension as to the functioning of the Courts also appeared to be without any substance. We are not aware of any event in the country nor any was shown to exist that the functioning of the Courts was suspended at any stage. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the explanation offered by the appellant which, in our opinion, has no substance. The plea is accordingly rejected.
6. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected as barred by time.