Inessential details apart, the present appellant on 04.12.1993 approached the learned Civil. Court for grant of decree of specific performance of oral contract dated 25.07.1990, which was further acknowledged by executing written contract. The suit was contested by the respondents with the stance that no bargain was settled and that the contract was forged and fabricated document. After full-fledged trial, ultimately learned Civil Court while appreciating evidence available on suit file in depth dismissed the suit vide comprehensive judgment of 24th September , 2001, though it was assailed by filing Regular First Appeal before the learned District Court, yet after a delay of almost six years, which again was not vigilantly pursued and ultimately it was dismissed in default on 5th September , 2009. Although for its restora tion, application was preferred, which failed vide impugned order of 22nd February , 2010. The appellant again went in slumber and lastly filed the Appeal in hand on 16th June, 2010 when provided period was over .
2. Arguments heard and record scanned.
3. Although application for condonation of delay along with the Appeal was filed with the averment that appellant became ill, but the certificate for "bed rest" appended therewith issued by a private Doctor reflected' that it was issued for a period commencing from 08.03.2010 to 21.03.2010, but no explanation for the remaining period spreading over 85 days was detailed -as to why these were wasted in filing the Appeal. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that his client being lady deserves leniency and that law favours adjudication of cases on merit is not well-founded. No justification was brought on record that how almost six years were wasted to approach the learned Appellate Court against the dismissal of the suit. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that counsel of his client did not communicate her with regard to decision of the suit was not rational. It is not only the duty of a counsel to peruse the case rather basically it is the function of the litigant to watch the proceedings of his case. There is unanimity of the view among the superior Courts that because of the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the limitation Act, 1908, the Court before which any suit, Appeal or application is instituted, preferred or made is obliged to dismiss the same. The jurisdiction, of a Court is always subject to law of limitation. If the proceedings before the Court are launched beyond the scope of I limitation, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction. There is no second opinion that law of limitation, which is statute of repose is designed to quit title and to bar, stale and water logged disputes, must be strictly complied with and the Courts cannot refrain from applying the said law. After the prescribed period has elapsed, the door of justice is closed and no plea of illness, poverty , distress, ignorance or mistake can be availed. Moreover , the legality or illegality of the order/judgment can be checked by the Appellate Forum only when the jurisdiction of the said Court is invoked within the statutory period by availing of the proper remedy . The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance, which would have substantial bearing on merits of the case, and the law of limitation must be followed. In arriving at this view, this Court is fortified by the dicta laid down by the apex. Court in the judgments reported as S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Comm ittee Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367), Muhammad Naseem Sipra v. Secretary , Government of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1149) and Fazal Illahi Siddiqi vs. Pakistan ( PLD 1990 SC 692 ).
4. For the delay in filing of the instant Appeal, it is the appellant, who -can. blame herself. No doubt, she also filed CM.No.2-C of 2010 for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal merely on the ground of sickness, but it as observed hereinabove cannot be given force.
5. For what has been discussed above, the C.M.No.2-C-2010 as well as instant Appeal is dismissed.