Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.--(C.M.No,1-C-2010) This is an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argues that mistakenly the appeal was filed before the wrong forum i,e, learned District Judge, against the decree of dismissal of their suit dated 19.11.2009, Appeal was filed on 18.12.2009, same was returned to the appellants on 4.3.2010 and it was re-filed in this Court on 15.3.2010, therefore, prays that delay which occurred by filing the appeal before the wrong forum as well as after return of appeal and filing before this Court be condoned.
3. On, the other hand, learned counsel representing respondents has vehemently opposed this application by arguing that the appeal was filed by the same learned counsel who was counsel before the learned trial Court and he was well aware of the jurisdictional value and that even the appellants have not disputed the jurisdictional value of the suit as well as appeal i,e, Rs, 29,00,000/-, Further states that both the applicants-appellants are themselves practicing Advocates and states that the delay cannot be condoned when the appeal has been filed negligently before the wrong forum. Reliance has been placed upon "Bashir Ahmad versus Muhammad Sharif and 4 others" (PLD 2001. Supreme Court 228), "Mst. Khadija Begum and 2 others versus Mst. Yasmeen and 4 others" (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 355), 'Mujahid Shah and another versus Suhail Ikram and 3 others" (PLD 2006 Lahore 26) and a judgment passed by this Court in C.M. No,1-C-2005 in RFA.No,275 of 2005 on 16.5.2006.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. So far as filing of the appeal before the wrong forum is concerned, in this case when the learned counsel who was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the trial Court and all the proceedings and fixation of valuation was in his knowledge then filing of appeal in the wrong forum does not entitle the plaintiffs-appellants for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for not filing the appeal vigilantly and with due care when plaintiffs-appellants themselves are also the practicing Advocates as per arguments of learned counsel for the respondents. Furthermore, when appeal was returned, it was to be filed before this Court and if the story of the applicants that they applied for certified copy on 5.3.2010 and same was handed over to them on 9.3.2010, filing of appeal before this Court on 15.3.2010, therefore, they were bound under the Law to explain the delay of each and every day after receipt, of the appeal back by the appellants on 4.3.2010 or at least after 9.3.2010 when certified copies of the impugned judgment & decree in the appeal were also received by the appellants-applicants. In the light of case law referred by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the light which we have taken from the law declared by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Raja Karamatullah and 3 others versus Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sukhera" (1999 SCM R 1892), applicants are not entitled for condonation of delay when no explanation has been given for the delay after receipt of the appeal buck from the wrong forum, when certified copies were also received on 9.3.2010, till the filing of the appeal before this Court on 15.3.2010. In view of the above discussion, this C.M is dismissed. Result would be that RFA as well as applications stand dismissed.