' MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.---The above titlaed parition for leave to appeal arise out of the consolidated judgment of the High Court dated 2-7-2013 whereby while dismissing both the appeals filed by Ghulam Asghar and Muhammad Aziz and others against the judgment and decree passed, by the Court below has been amended and Ghulam Asghar has been declared as entitled to the decree of ecific performance of contract to the extent of land measuring 3 kanals, 5- 1/2 Marlas comprising survey No,864, khewat No,26, village Mandi, Tehsil and District Kotli for a sum of Rs,15,00,000. Both the parties have filed the titled petitions for leave to appeal.
2. During pendency of the both the petitions for leave to appeal, applications for conversion of the petitions for leave to appeal and treating the same as appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court were filed on 17-8-2013 and 22-2-2014.
3. Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick, advocate, while, arguing on behalf of Ghulam Asghar, submitted that the petitioner has filed petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 2-7- 2013. He claimed that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement-to-sell dated 13-1-1999. The trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of 3 kanals 5 Marlas of land falling under survey No,864 against a price of three million rupees. Two appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dismissed both the appeals but amended the decree of the trial Court and the petitioner was declared as entitled to a decree for specific performance of an agreement-to-sell regarding the land measuring 3 kanals 5-1/2 marlas, against a price of Rs,15,00,000 (fifteen lac rupees), already paid by the petitioner. The petitioner filed petition for leave to appeal on 19-8-2013. The learned counsel submitted that the decree passed by the trial Court in respect of the suit land in the shape of specific performance of agreement-to-sell was confirmed by the High Court without variation and setting it aside, as such the petition for leave to appeal was maintainable against the impugned judgment. No variation in the decree of subordinate Court has been made in respect of subject of the dispute. The learned counsel argued that however the High Court fixed the price of land as Rs,15,00,000, already paid.
The learned counsel argued that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petition for leave to appeal is not maintainable and direct appeal lies, then petition for leave to appeal be treated as appeal because no limitation for filing appeal in the Supreme Court is provided in section 42(11)(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir: Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and Order XII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The appeal can be filed at any time. The learned counsel referred to the case reported as Ghulam Nabi and 26 others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and 4 others [1981 SCMR 889]. The learned counsel further argued that the law is to be interpreted as it is and not as it sought to be. Not a single word can be added or subtracted from clear legal provisions. The learned counsel referred to and relied upon the following case-law:---
(i) Muhammad Latif Khan and others v. Lal Khan and others [PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 123]
(ii) Inayatullah Khan v. Capt. (Retd.) Inayatullah Khan and another [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 85]
(iii) Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad [PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 23],
(iv) Syed Mazhar-ul-Hassan and another v. Zubina Nayyar and 10 others [1994 CLC 1428].
(v) Azad Government and others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others [1996 SCR 136],
(vi) Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shaft Khan and 4 others [1999 SCR 291],
(vi) Syed Javed Hussain Shah v. Azad Government and others and 3 others [2001 SCR 567],
(v) Azad Government v. Muhammad Suleman and 6 others [2003 SCR 423], and
(viii) Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another [2004 SCR 459].
' The learned counsel argued that there are conflicting judgments of this Court on this point. The view expressed in the case reported as Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another [2004 SCR 459], is not correct. It needs revisiting.
' In the case reported as Muhammad Latif Khan and others v. Lal Khan and others [PLD 1979 SC (AI&K) 123], it was observed that Courts are not expected to find fault with wisdom of law-makers and import an alien meaning to any enacted provision.
' In the case reported as Inayatullah Khan v. Capt. (Retd.) Inayatulla Khan and another [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 85], it was observed by this Court that the words which do not appear in statutory provisions, cannot be imported therein only on the basis of logic by referring to the different provisions of same statute.
' In the case reported as Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad [PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 23], it was observed by this Court that it is a settled principle of law that a document is to be interpreted, it, is to be interpreted in a way as to avoid any mischief created by such like ambiguities. It was observed as under:--- "110. All rules or procedures, it is to be noticed, are meant for the enhancement of justice and not to impede it. The judicial proceedings may, at times, give way to situation and circumstances needing action, for doing justice, which may not necessarily be covered by any express provision of the Code. The Courts are then to act in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience."
' In the case reported as Syed Mazhar-ul-Hassan Hamdani and another v. Zubina Nayyar and 10 others [1994 CLC 1428], it was observed by this Court that the Court couldn't fill in lacuna in rules or statute by supplying the words or phrases.
' In the case reported as Azad Government and others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others [1996 SCR 136], it was observed by this Court that no period of limitation has been prescribed for an appeal under section 42(11)(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, perhaps by mistake or oversight, therefore, it cannot be held that the present appeal should be necessarily dismissed as being time-barred or incompetent. We leave this question open for decision in some other case and purpose to dispose of the present appeal on merits.
' In the case reported as Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shaft Khan 4 others [2000 YLR 3058], the question of filing of direct appeal in the Supreme Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act was involved. The Court observed that there has been a common practice of filing petition for leave to appeal instead of direct appeal. Leave has been granted. No limitation is fixed for direct appeal in the Supreme Court Rules or the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the petitions are treated as appeals.
' The case reported as Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shaft Khan and 4 others [2000 YLR 3058] was considered in a recent judgment of this Court titled WAPDA and others v. Taj Begum and others (Civil PLA No,202 of 2013) decided on 3-2-2014) wherein we reached the conclusion that the judgments reported as Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shaft Khan and 4 others 2000 YLR 3058 and Azad Government and 2 others v. Mukhtar Saeed Qadri and 2 others [2000 YLR 2016] were delivered in misconception that direct appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act lies in this Court. The said provision was amended in Pakistan after the adaptation of the Land Acquisition Act in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The amended provision is not adopted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The petitions for leave to appeal in the cases of Land Acquisition, were allowed after treating as appeal on the ground that those have been filed due to misconception in the light of the referred judgments. It has been observed as under:--- "....The petitions for leave to appeal in the cases arising out of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are being filed in the light of judgments of this Court recorded in the cases reported as Muhammad Shafi Khan and 4 others [2000 YLR 3058] and Azad Government and 2 others v. Mukhtar Saeed Qadri and 2 others [2000 YLR 2016] due to misconception, which are incompetent but in the light of reasons listed in para 12 of the judgment, it is held that the petitioners in all the present petitions for leave to appeal filed under section 42(12) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, may apply to the Court for conversion of petition for leave to appeal into appeal or appeal into petition for leave to appeal, as the case may be, within a period of one week from the announcement of the judgment."
' In the case reported as Syed Javed Hussain Shah v. Azad Government and others and 3 others [2002 PLC (C.S.) 996] it was observed by this Court that the Courts have to interpret the law as it is.
The Courts cannot add or subtract anything from the relevant law.
' In the case reported as Azad Government v. Muhammad Sideman and 6 others [2003 SCR 423] it has been observed by this Court that the law has to take its course as it exists in the statute book and it has to be interpreted as it is.
' In the case reported as Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another [2004 CLC 1925], a full bench of this Court observed that although no limitation under section 42(11)
(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 or the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 has been provided for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court, but the limitation for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court under section 42(11), cannot be more than the one for filing petition for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ayub Sabir, advocate, counsel for Muhammad Aziz and others, has also filed an application, for treating the petition for leave to appeal as appeal and adopted the arguments of Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick, advocate, and requested for treating the petition for leave to appeal as appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Ghulam Asghar, petitioner, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement-to-sell in respect of land measuring 7 kanals, 12 marlas, comprising survey No,864, against a price of three million rupees out of which 1.5 million rupees have already been paid, in the Court of District Judge Kotli on 16-9- 1999. The case was entrusted to the Additional District Judge Sehensa, Camp Kotli for hearing and disposal. After necessary proceedings, the learned Additional District Judge Sehensa Camp Kotli, who was entrusted the case, decreed the suit to the extent of land measuring 3 kanals, 5-1/2 marlas, against a price of three million rupees provided the payment of remaining 1.5 million rupees is made within one month. Two appeals were filed which were dismissed by amending the decree to the effect that instead of three million rupees, plaintiff is entitled to the decree against 1.5 million rupees, already paid.
6. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies from the judgment, decree, final order or sentence of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir under section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. An appeal under clause (d) of subsection (11) of section 42 of the Constitution Act, if the amount or value of the subject- A matter of dispute in the Court of first instance was and also in the dispute in appeal is not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court has varied or set aside the judgment, decree or final order of the Court immediately below.
The proposition has been settled by this. Court in a number of cases that if the amount or value of the subject-matter of dispute in the Court of first instance was and also in dispute in appeal is not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court has varied or set aside the judgment, decree or final order appealed from, then a direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court. It has been observed in WAPDA and others' case (supra), as under:--- "14 Thus, it can safely be held that in the cases where value of the subject-matter in the Court of first instance and in appeal before the High Court is not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court has altered or varied the judgment or decree of the Court below, direct appeal under section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, lies in this Court and in the cases not covered by section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, petition for leave to appeal under section 42(12) is maintainable."
' In another case reported as Chief Administrator Awe v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed Nisar and 38 others PLD 2012 SC (AJ&K) 21, this Court observed as under:--- "15 It, therefore, follows that under clauses (d) and (e) of subsection
(11) of section 42 of the Interim. Constitution Act, 1974 a direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the amount or value of the subject-matter in the first Court a well as before the High Court is not less than fifty thousand rupees or any increasing sum specified by the Act and the judgment, decree of final order placed before the Court is varied or set aside by the High Court ' OR ' If the judgment, decree or final order by the High Court involves claim or question respecting property of fifty thousand rupees amount or value and the High Court has varied or set aside the judgment. We, therefore, hold that the intention of the legislature is clear on the point that if the.
High Court doesn't varies alter or set aside the judgment of the Courts below, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is not competent, although the amount or value of the subject-matter is more than fifty thousand rupees. To reiterate the view of Mr. Justice Munir we hold that the Constitution fixes the minimum value of the claim unless the same is not altered by an act of the Parliament, the Constitution doesn't contemplate the appeal from a decree of affirmance. Individual merits of the appeals shall be determined by the division bench already seized with the matter. This order/judgment shall be attached with each file and each appeal shall be placed before the division bench already seized with the matter."
7. In the case in hand, the value of subject-matter in the trial Court was three million rupees. The decree was passed involving the amount of three million rupees. The High Court amended the decree and fixed the price instead of three million rupees as 1.5 million rupees. The decree has been varied. Under section 42(11)(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, direct appeal lies against the judgment/decree of the High Court in this Court. Instead the petitioners in both the petitions filed petitions for leave to appeal. The limitation for filing appeal under section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, has not been fixed. Order XII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, deals with the appeals under section 42(11) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. In the Rules, no limitation is provided for filing an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court in this Court. Under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court is sixty days.
8. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law is to be interpreted as it is and no word can be added or subtracted from a clear legal provision. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules were framed in 1978. No period of limitation for filing appeal under section 4(11)(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 in the Supreme Court Rules is prescribed. While hearing the appeal titled Azad Government and others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others [1996 SCR 136], the question was left open for decision in some other case. The question remained involved in number of cases and lastly in the case reported as Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another 2004 CLC 1925 a full Bench of this Court finally resolved the controversy after going through the history of the statutes where no period of limitation was prescribed for filing a revision petition in the High Court, this Court reached the conclusion that non-provision of the limitation doesn't mean that a party is at liberty to file an appeal from the order at any time he likes. It was resolved that limitation for filing an appeal under section 42(11) of the Constitution Act cannot be more than the one provided for filing petition for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
It was observed in paras 14 and 15 as under:---
14. From the survey of aforementioned case-law it becomes clear that even though no period of limitation was prescribed in the Limitation Act or under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but a practice was developed and the Courts insisted upon the observance of the same by the litigant public to seek the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court within a period of ninety days, the period fixed for availing, appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The party required to explain such delay. In past, in the case titled Azad Government and others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others [1996 SCR 136] the question of limitation for filing direct appeal before this Court was left open for decision in some other case. We have noticed that this controversy up to this time has not been resolved. Right of appeal is a statutory right; the same can be availed by observing the mandatory requirements fixed by law. However, to meet the ends of justice the Courts of law had in exceptional cases refrained from taking hypothetical view in respect of procedural requirements let down under law and in exceptional cases overlooked the procedural technicalities. To have a uniform policy, in our view, everyone who wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under any statutory provision for the redressal of his grievance, must fulfill the procedural requirements let down by law.
15. In Azad Jammu and Kashmir if the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute is above Rs,50,000, an aggrieved party can seek the indulgence of this Court in respect of its grievance by filing a direct appeal under section 42(11)(d) on the Constitution Act. We concede that on account of oversight or negligence no limitation has been prescribed even, under the Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The scheme of law is that there should be an end to the litigation. Therefore whenever a remedy has been provided the procedure to avail the same and the period within which that remedy can be availed is also provided under law or rules framed to carry out the purposes of such law. No matter is left open for indefinite period. In other words it is not at the pleasure of an aggrieved contesting party to avail the jurisdiction of the next forum provided under law within indefinite period; particularly the appeal is a right which is provided by law and there is always a limitation provided for availing this remedy. If within such period of limitation the right of appeal is not availed of, then the issue resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction through judicial verdict shall bar fresh litigation after the prescribed period at the very outset, because in such case the matter in dispute - having passed in rem judicatum shall bar the re-opening of that matter.
The reason is that the litigation must come to an end and even under the public policy which has been owned by the law, no individual can be vexed twice for the same cause. If we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case that the right of appeal can be availed of at any time as no limitation is provided in the rules or in the Constitution Act, then in that case the Defence Department of Government of Pakistan shall suffer hardships as in so many cases the land acquired to meet requirements of defence purposes in which the litigation has come to an end by the pronouncements of the High Court, the private parties may start filing appeals against the same before this Court. However, as finality is to be given to pronouncements of Courts and no matter can be left open for indefinite period at the pleasure of the contesting parties, therefore, to avail the jurisdiction of appeal before this court, the period must be provided.
In our view, the period for filing direct appeal before this Court cannot be beyond the period fixed for availing the jurisdiction of this Court where special leave to appeal is required to be filed. The necessary addition shall be incorporated in the Supreme Court Rules, 1978."
This view is consistently being allowed by the Court. We reaffirm the same.
9. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 2-7-2013. The petition for leave to appeal by Ghulam Asghar was filed on 19-8-2013 and by Muhammad Aziz and others on 2-9-2013. The application for treating the petition for leave to appeal as appeal by Ghulam Asghar was filed on 24-2-2014 and the application by Muhammad Aziz and others was filed on 28-2-2014, that too, after a period of around six months from filing of the petition for leave to appeal. The applications have been filed beyond the period of limitation fixed in the case reported as Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another [2004 CLC 1925]. Had there been a case of first impression, then the argument was available to the petitioners that no limitation for filing appeal has been provided under section 42(11)(d) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and Order XII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 but this Court in the case reported as Defence Department of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Khan and another [2004 CLC 1925] categorically held that the limitation for filing a direct appeal is sixty days, which is for leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. In the presence of the said judgment the argument is not available to the petitioners and they are not entitled to condonation of delay. The matter came under consideration of this Court in the case reported as Chief Administrator Augaf (Nazim-e-Alla Auqaf) v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed and others [2013 SCR 715] wherein it was observed as under:--- "5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The record reveals, that the direct appeal against the judgment of High Court dated 28th March, 2008 was filed on 23rd May, 2008 within the prescribed period of limitation. During the course of arguments on 24th March, 2011; a preliminary objection as raised from the opposite side and we formulated a point to the effect whether the direct appeal under section 42(11)(d)(e) or the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 is competent or not when the value of the subject-matter in the lower court and the appellate court is not below Rs,50,000 and the High Court has not altered, varied or set aside the judgment of the court immediate below. A full bench of this Court reached the following conclusion:--- ' We, therefore, hold that the intention of the legislature is clear on the point that if the High Court doesn't vary, alter or set aside the judgment of the Courts below, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is not competent, although the amount of value off the subject-matter is more than fifty thousand rupees.'
' The judgment on the aforesaid point was delivered on 29th April, 2011 in presence of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has moved an application for converting the appeal into P.L.A. On 29th August, 2011 after a period of four months, while limitation or filing P.L.A. In this Court is sixty days from the order/judgment of the High Court. If for the sake of arguments we consider the argument that the appellant was misled by the above referred judgment of this Court, then too it was enjoined upon him to file application for treating the appeal as P.L.A. Soon after the announcement of judgment on 29th April, 2011 or within the period of sixty days. The learned counsel for the appellant could not furnish any explanation of filing application after four months of the announcement of the judgment. The appellant is negligent, therefore, not entitled for condonation of delay. Even otherwise the appellant has not moved any application for condonation of delay, if we treat the period of limitation from the date of announcement of judgment by this Court, even then the application has been filed more than two months beyond the period of limitation. The application is therefore, dismissed."
' Similarly this Court in its order dated 9-4-2012 passed in the case titled Ch. Muhammad Azal v.
MDA and others, observed as under:--- "7. We have heard the appellant and the counsel for the respondents. The record reveals that the appellant filed a suit for recovery of 3.5 million rupees which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Dudyal Camp Mirpur on 27-9-2006. On appeal, the High Court, also dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the Additional District Judge was maintained by the High Court in the case titled Chief Administrator Augaf v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed and other (Civil Appeal No,31/2008, decided on 18-1-2012) the proposition before he Court was that, "whether direct appeal is competent when the value of the suit in the original Court or in appeal is not less than Rs,50,000 or direct appeal can be filed when the value of appeal is not below Rs,50,000 and the High Court modifies, set asides or rescinds the judgment." After detailed analysis, it was observed as under:--- ' We, therefore, hold that the intention of the legislature is clear on the point that if the High Court doesn't vary, alter or set aside the judgment of the Courts below, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is not competent, although the amount or value of the subject-matter is more than fifty thousand rupees."
' We have also considered the judgment referred to and relied Upon by the appellant, reported as Chairman N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others v. Khurshid Anwar Khan and others [1992 SCMR 1202]. In the referred case the appeal was time-barred. An oral request was made for converting the appeal into petition for leave to appeal. The limitation for filing direct appeal under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules is 30 days while limitation for filing petition for leave appeal is 60 days. The request for converting the appeal into petition for leave to appeal as within the period of limitation i,e, 60 days, therefore, the Court converted the appeal into petition for leave to appeal.
The case is not of help to the case of the appellant-applicant."
' The result of the above discussion is that both the applications for treating and converting the petitions for leave to appeal into appeal F are also dismissed. Resultantly the petitions for leave to