Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.- The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 01.02.2019, whereby , the appeal filed by the petitioner , herein, has been dismissed.
2. The precise facts of the case are that the plaintif f-petitioner , herein, filed a suit for specific performance and revocation of gift-deed before the learned District Judge, Mirpur , against the defendant-respondents, herein, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 22.10.2013. Against the said order , an application for restoration of the same was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2016. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings has also dismissed the appeal through impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Altaf Chaudhary , Advo cate, the learned counsel for the petitioner after narration of necessary facts submitted that the Courts below have failed to properly apply their judicial mind. The petitioner in the application has explained the sufficient reason for the delay of few days as he was abroad and in support of his version, he also furnished the documentary proof i.e. copy of the postal receipt containing date of entry . Neither this aspect has been properly considered nor appreciated by the learned High Court. The learned trial Court observed that the petitioner came to Pakistan on 09.12.2013 and he was implicated in a criminal case. He remained on bail before arrest till 28.12.2013. Thereafter , he was arrested and released on bail on 21.01.2014. This fact also rectified the reasons advanced in the application, whereas, the learned High Court has decided the appeal on a quite different proposition while considering some reference of Diary of the counsel which has neither been exhibited nor tendered alongwith the application, thus, the reason advanced in the impugned judgment is based upon an irrelevant document, therefore, the impugned judgment on this sole ground is not maintainable. The proposition involved is whether the petitioner was abroad and after deduction of time being abroad as postulated under statutory provisions of section 13 of Limitation Act, 1908, he is entitled for condonation of delay or not. Same like, the proposition that whether the reason advanced by the High Court based upon an irrelevant document is legally suf ficient cause for dismissal of the appeal, justifies grant of leave.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record made available. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner , specially , the application of section 13 of Limitation Act, 1908, and the learned High Court drawn the conclusion on the basis of document which has neither been relied upon nor referred in the application, can be legally relied upon. Such proposition requires detail deliberation, therefore, for doing complete justice, leave is granted. The petitioner shall deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within two weeks' time, otherwise, the leave granting order shall automatically stand rescinded. The office shall proceed further according to rules.