' KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.--- This civil revision impugns the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lodhran whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 14-5-1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Lodhran, whereby the appeal was dismissed as being barred by time though no findings were given on the merits of the case.
2. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is dated 14-11-1995. The appeal was filed before the District Judge on 9-1-1996. Along with the appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed an application for the condonation of delay. In this petition, it was alleged that the learned trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1995 and on the very next day i,e, on 15-11-1995, the appellant/ petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree and he was asked to collect the copy on 21-11-1995. However, when on 21-11-1995, he came to collect the copy, he was informed that so far the copies had not been prepared and so he kept on visiting the Copying Brnch for the collection of the copies, which were handed over to him on 7-1-1996 and so the appeal was filed on 9-1-1996 and if there is any delay, it be condoned. The said application was resisted by the respondent, who filed the written reply of the said petition, wherein it was maintained that the appeal was barred by time. The learned Appellate Court recorded the statement of Copy Clerk on 14-5-1996 and on the basis of said statement, the learned appellate Court vide order dated 14-5-1996 dismissed the application for the condonation of delay and resultantly dismissed the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement of the Copy Clerk recorded by the learned appellate Court itself shows that he had given no chit or specific extended date to the petitioner for the collection of copy and in-fact the petitioner kept on visiting the Copying Agency but the copies were not handed over and in fact handed over to him on 7-1-1996 and so the appeal preferred on 9-1-1996 was within time. He has also invited the attention of this Court to subsection (5) of section 12 of the Limitation Act. He also placed reliance to the case of Mirza Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Additional Settlement Commissioner Lands and others (2005 SCM R 973).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. There is no denial of the fact that the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is dated 14- 11-1995. The Copy Clerk who made the statement before the appellate Court had also deposed that he received the application on the very next day i,e, 15-11-1995. He admitted in his cross- examination that he had given the date 21-11-1995 but he had not received the file, so the copy of the judgment could not be delivered to the petitioner and he directed the petitioner that he should contact him after three days and thereafter he prepared the copy on 29-11-1995 but the petitioner, came to collect the copy on 7-1-1996. On the other hand, as has been mentioned above, the plea of the petitioner was that he kept on visiting the Copying Agency after 21-11-1995 but the copies were not handed over to him. It is appropriate to reproduce subsection (5) of section 12 of the Limitation Act, which relates to the computation of period of limitation and reads as under:--- "(5) For the purposes 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 A between the day 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."
' From the perusal of the above-said section, it stands established that the material date is the date which had actually been intimated to the applicant to collect the copy. In the present case; the actual date intimated to the applicant to collect the copy was 21-11-1995. It is established from the statement of the Copy Clerk that on 21-11-1995, the copies were not prepared. The said statement also shows that no specific extended date was given to the applicant for the collection of copies and there is vague statement of Copy Clerk that he asked the applicant to come after three days. This clearly shows that no actual date was communicated after 21-11-1995 to the applicant for the collection of the copy. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner also shows that the actual date is the date of intimation to the applicant.
7. In the High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 7(xxii), it is also provided as under:--- "The applicants applying for copies shall be given a date in writing on which delivery of the copy to be taken. If the copy is not then completed such date(s) shall be extended from time to time until the copy is ready for delivery. Intimation of the extended date or dates will be given to the applicant in writing, when he calls to take delivery of the copy on or after the due date. The final date so intimated shall for the purpose of calculation required by this rule, be deemed to be the day on which the copy is given."
In this way, it stands established that the applicant was not intimated with regard to the actual extended date for obtaining the copy and thus the learned appellate Court committed illegality by dismissing the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal. Resultantly, this civil revision succeeds with the result that the order of the learned District Judge dated 14-5-1996 is set aside and it would be presumed that the appeal is still pending, since the appeal was not disposed of on merits and the revisional Court cannot assume the role of appellate Court. The matter is remanded back to the learned appellate Court for deciding the appeal on merits. Since the matter is fairly old one, so the learned District judge, Lodhran is directed that he should himself hear the appeal and must dispose it of within two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge Lodhran on 21-12-2011. The record of the learned trial Court as well as of the appellate Court be also sent back to the learned District Judge, Lodhran.