1. SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---Through this review application under section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, C.P.C. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have sought to review the order dated 19-2-2008, passed by this Court whereby impugned order dated 8-10-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No, 829 of 2004 had been set aside and the above appeal had been allowed and remanded the case to learned trial Court with directions to the learned Commissioner to record the evidence of the parties within four months.
2. ' Due to dispute regarding the alleged cancellation of plot the appellant filed suit. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement contended therein that the suit plot was allotted to appellant being amenity plot for the construction of the Hospital at a nominal price, the appellant neither remained in its physical possession nor physical possession was ever handed over to him, therefore, question of alleged dispossession does not arise. However, some encroachers had occupied the suit plot, PECHS on humanitarian grounds paid cash money for removal of the hutments and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 constructed of hospital through their own funds for public use. The issues were framed Mr. Tehseen Bhatti Ex-District & Sessions Judge was appointed as Commissioner for recording the evidence and on 14-10-2006 the appellant filed his affidavit in evidence as well as of his witnesses and the learned Commissioner fixed the case for, cross- examination of the appellant and his witnesses on 11-11-2006, due to absence of the appellant and his witnesses the side of the appellant was closed, later the order was Set-aside on 20-3-2007.
3. ' On 26-5-2007 the examination of the appellant was recorded and the cross-examination of the appellant was reserved at the request of counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the case was adjourned for 4-6-2007 at 12-00 p.m., on that date the appellant could not appear before the Commissioner as his vehicle was challaned by the traffic sergeant and he was struck up in traffic jam, an adjournment application was moved but same was dismissed and the side of the appellant was closed by the learned Commissioner as contained in his report.
4. ' The appellant filed an application for setting aside the order dated 4-6-2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8-10-2007, the same was impugned before this Court, on 19-2-2008, the appeal was allowed and case was remanded back to the trial Court with direction to the Commissioner for recording the evidence of the parties within four months, in case of appellant's failure to adduce the evidence then the law will take its own course subject to payment of cost of Rs,10,000 to the respondents Nos.1 and 2.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the above order came to the knowledge of the counsel for the appellant on 3-3-2008, as conveyed by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the Intra Court appeal could be filed within 20 days from the date of impugned order while the appeal was filed on 6-11-2007 against the impugned order dated 8-10-2007 thus it was time barred by 10 days for which neither condonation application showing sufficient cause was filed nor any plausible explanation was given, hence it was liable to be dismissed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was just proper in exercise of lawful jurisdiction does not require for interference on account of error apparent on the face of record the judgment dated 19-2-2008 is liable to be reviewed. It is further pointed out that the appellant was lingering 'on the case and deliberately avoided to appear before the Commissioner for cross-examination though earlier his side was closed affidavit filed with the application was based upon false and fabricated facts. The appellant was required to explain delay of each day, in support thereof reliance is placed in the following case laws:--
(i) Khawaja Muhammad Afzal and another v. Sh. Muhammad Sadiq 1988 SCMR page 179.
(ii) Abdul Subhan and 3 others v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan and 2 others 1987 MLD page 2736.
(iii) Yaqeen-ud-Din and others v. Abdul Majid and others 1975 SCMR page 305
(iv) Sh. Bashir Ahmed v. Mudassar Hayat 2005 SCMR page 1120
(vi) Cooperative Model Town Society v. Mst. Asghari Safdar and others 2005 SCMR page 931.
6. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment under review is well reasoned and needs no interference and the appeal was preferred within time, application for condonation of delay was filed as a safety measure. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 that the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 8-10-2007 application for certified copy was moved on 18-10-2007, copies were delivered on 24-10-2007, thereby 7 days were consumed for obtaining certified copy the appeal was filed after 11 days from the date of delivery of certified copy of the impugned order and after addition of 9 days the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the appeal was prepared on 3-11-2007 but due to implementation of Provisional Constitution Order 2007 the Courts were closed on 5-11-2007, the appellants' counsel came the Court on 5-11-2007 police arrested him from the gate of High Court later he was released thereafter, on 6-11-2007 the next day he preferred the appeal. Even otherwise, the mandatory notice U/O XLVIII Rule 3 of C.P.C. Was served upon the respondent which is enclosed with the memo. Of appeal. It is contended that on 19-2-2008, the learned counsel for the respondents did not raise objection that the appeal is time barred. Even otherwise, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents from the judgment of appeal which is in conformity with order XX Rule 3, C.P.C. As such review application has been moved to linger on the proceeding and is liable to be dismissed in support thereof reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
(i) Muhammad Ramzan v. Mst. Allah Wasai and 3 others 2006 MLD 1577.
(ii) Amanullah Khan and 5 others v. Mst. Hayat Bibi and 4 others 2006 CLC 1546.
(iii) Muhammad Siddique and 10 others v. Raj Begum and 39 others 2008 CLC 61
(iv) Sabu Ram alias v. Heman Das 1973 SCMR 555
(v) Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Col. Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. Karachi 1980 CLC 1972.
(vi) Shujjat Hussain v. Muhammad Habib and another 2003 SCMR 176.
7. ' The learned counsel for the appellant also placed on record the ticket of traffic violation bearing No,41 issued on 4-6-2007 and was paid in the Bank on the same day.
8. ' We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record as well as law cited at bar.
9. ' For the sake of adjudging controversy from the point of law of limitation Article 151 in conjunction with Article 12 of the Limitation Act are reproduced herein-below for the sake of ready reference:-- "151.From a decree or order of a High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction 20 days from the date of the decree or order."
10. "12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings:--
(1) In computing the period of limitation 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 a 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 side an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall 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 days 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."
11. ' After completing the period in obtaining certified copies and submission of appeal we are of the view that the appeal was barred by one day.
12. The appeal was filed on 5-11-2007, it is an admitted fact that on that day there was disturbance in the High Court, and senior members of the bar were not allowed to enter in the premises. On 6-11- 2007, on the complaint of offence bears of the Bar Association to the Senior Puisne Judge regarding the hurdles created by law enforcing agencies registrar of this Court interven allowed the lawyers to enter into the Court premises, ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be delay of one day is liable to be condoned in submission of the appeal.
13. ' For the foregoing reasons review application is not maintainable in law hereby stands dismissed.
14. Review dismissed.