Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.--This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 7.4.2010, whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No, 1, is partly accepted.
2. The brief facts culminating into this appeal are that the plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit for declaration and possession on 1.6.1985, against the defendants-appellants in respect of land measuring 17 kanals comprising Khewat No, 41, Survey Nos, 110/1, 110/2 and 110/3 and land measuring 33 kanals, 4 marlas, comprising Khewat No, 42, Survey Nos, 110 and 111, total measuring 50 kanals 4 marlas, situate in village Dhani Bakalan, Tehsil Hattian. The plaintiffs-respondents also sought cancellation of the decree passed by Sub-Judge, Hattian on 20.4.1976. The plaintiffs- respondents claimed that they are co-sharers and owners of the land in dispute which was under the possession of the father of Sain and others, defendants-appellants herein, as tenant who was regularly paying ghala batahi. It was alleged that Syed Ahmed Khan, in collusion with one of the owners, namely, Muhammad Rafique son of Rahmatullah and father of the defendants-appellants, herein filed a suit on the basis of an agreement-to-sell and obtained an ex parte decree on 20.4.1976 which is ineffective and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. It was further claimed that the decree had been obtained by practicing fraud and forgery because the addresses of the defendants were wrongly entered in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendants-appellants, herein, on several grounds including the bar limitation as 'and locus standi of the plaintiffs-respondents. After necessary proceedings, the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.199], for want of proof. The plaintiffs-respondents, herein, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court on 10.11.1991. The learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1993, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge and granted the decree of possession in respect of the suit land subject to payment of Rs, 1,72,480/- as improvements costs.
Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the District Judge, Respondent No, 1, filed an appeal before the High Court on 17.11.1993. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.4.2010, partly accepted the appeal and recalled the decree to the extent of grant of the costs of improvements. With this modification, the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge was maintained. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the High Court dated 7.4.2010, that the present appeal has been filed.
3. At the' very outset, Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that in the instant case the petition for leave to appeal was time-barred and at the time of grant of leave, this Court has taken the notice of it, therefore, before dilating upon the merits of the case, the question of limitation is required to be decided at first. On this, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, was asked to cross at first the barrier of limitation in filing of petition for leave to appeal. He submitted that he had already placed on record an application for condonation of delay in which sufficient cause has been shown. The judgment was passed in absence of Defendants-Appellants No, 4 to 15 because they were never informed about the case by any means. The judgment was also passed against the dead persons. Moreover, all the defendants-appellants are illiterate persons and have no knowledge of the judicial proceedings. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the defendants- appellants came to know about the situation on 30.6.2010 at Karachi that the case has been decided against the father of the Defendants-Appellants No, 4 to 15. Thereafter, they immediately consulted their counsel for obtaining the copy of the judgment of the High Court. They could not file the appeal within time as the situation was beyond their control.
4. On merits, Mr. Muhammad Shafi, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, has submitted that the judgment and decree are against law and facts of the case. The High Court has totally ignored the question of limitation. He argued that the High Court failed to discuss the evidence of the parties in its true perspective. The High Court erred in law while recalling the grant of improvements while ignoring the fact that same was made bona fidely on the basis of an agreement arrived between the parties in the year, 1949 when the registration mechanism was not in motion, hence the agreement-to-sell was a complete sale. This fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs-respondents being owners of the land, but this fact has totally been ignored by the High Court. In this way a great miscarriage of justice has been done to the defendants-appellants.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents, has submitted that the judgment and decree of the High Court are well reasoned and have been passed after due appreciation of evidence on cogent reasons, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record with the able assistance of both the learned counsel for the parties. Without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to resolve firstly the question of limitation. It would be relevant to reproduce the relevant paragraph of leave granting order in which this question has been attended, which reads as under:-- "7. I have heard the learned. counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question of limitation is an important one in the case. When the notice was not issued to the counsel for the petitioners and after the judgment, another counsel was informed of the judgment and the petitioners specifically taken the stand that they attained the knowledge on 30th June, 2010, the petition for leave to appeal was ready on 3rd July, 2010 and it was signed on 4th July but it was not filed on the same day in the Court but it was filed by the petitioners after a delay of one day.
Whether it is a case where delay can be condoned needs resolution by the Court in the regular appeal. The other points argued by the learned counsel for the parties are of legal importance also need resolution by the Court in regular appeal."
After going through the above said paragraph of leave granting order along with the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay, we have failed to find out any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. It is celebrated principle of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. The plaintiffs-respondents have raised the objection that the petition for leave to appeal was barred by 23 days. Under Order XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, the period of limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal is 60 days from the date of the judgment. If the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants is taken into consideration, that the defendants-appellants came to know about the decision of the High Court on 30.6.2010, even then the petition for leave to appeal was ready on 3.7.2010 and it was signed on 4th July but it was filed by the appellants after a delay of one day for which no sufficient cause has been brought on the record. Similar situation arose in the case titled Development Authority Mzd and 4 others v. Iqbal Hussain Nizami [2002 SCR 121] in which it has been observed as under:-- "The impugned judgment of the High Court was announced on 29.11.2001, whereas the petition for leave to appeal was lodged on 29.1.2002. The application for supplying the copies of grounds of writ petition and impugned judgment of the High Court was moved by the petitioners on 29.1.2002 and the same were supplied to them on the same day, i,e,, 29.1.2002 when the period of limitation for filing the petition had already expired. There is no explanation whatsoever furnished by the petitioners for lodging the petition for leave to appeal one day late than the prescribed period of limitation. It is a settled law that the delay of each and every day has to be explained by the petitioners for lodging the petition after the prescribed period of limitation,"
6-A. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that the defendants- appellants are illiterate persons, therefore, they did not know the question of limitation has no force as . the ignorance of law is no excuse. It has been held by this Court in a case, titled Qurban Ali and another v. The State [PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 104] at page 106 as under:- "8. I believe that the ignorance of law accompanied by circumstances not indicating want of good faith and negligence may, in circumstances of a particular case, furnish sufficient grounds within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order XXIII, Rule 2 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, but it is only correct to the extent that there is no negligence, no inaction and no want of good faith. A wrong advice given by a counsel may, therefore, in a given case, constitute sufficient cause, but a litigant, who has no knowledge of the law of limitation, as is said in the present case, does not act in good faith or with due diligence if he takes upon himself to determine the time."
Similar view prevailed in a case titled Muhammad Ibrahim v. Raj Muhammad and another [PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 51] in which it has been observed that ignorance of law has never been considered a valid ground for condonation of delay.
In the light of what has been stated above, without commenting upon other points, this appeal is dismissed being time, barred with no order as to the costs.