ALI BAIG, J.----This civil first appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 26-3-2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge First Class Danyore in Civil Suits Nos.235/2014-135/2016, whereby , the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of appellant/plaintif f.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant civil first appeal are that the present appellant/plaintif f instituted a suit (Civil Suits Nos.235/2014, 135/2016) for recovery of an amount amounting to Rs.15,1 1,522/- along with 15% annual interest from institution of suit till disposal of suit against the present respondent/defendant in the trial court.
3. The respondent being defendant in the suit contested the suit by way of filing of written statement in the trial court, wherein, he has raised certain legal objections and has denied the claim of the appellant/plaintif f on facts.
4. In the light of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed 14 issues including issue of relief.
5. Thereafter , the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claims. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment/decree dated 26-03-2018 has dismissed the suit of the present appellant/plaintif f.
6. The present appellant/plaintif f feeling aggrieved and discontent with the impugned judgment/decree, passed by the learned trial court, filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit on 25-04-2018 which was assigned to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit for disposal. The aforesaid appeal (C.F.A. No.58/2018) remained sub-judice before the court of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit till 10-05-2019. On 10-05-2019, the learned first appellate court returned the aforesaid appeal to the appellant holding that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the 1st Appellate Court for deciding appeals according to Section 18 of Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 is upto Rs.250,000/-, therefore, the Additional District Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter , hence, the appeal is returned to the appellant for presentation of the same before the court of comp etent jurisdiction if so advised.
Accordingly , the appellant has filed the instant Civil First Appeal before this Court.
7. As, by that time, the period of limitation for filing of an appeal in the High Court/this Court against the judgment of trial court had expired, but it is astonishin g to note that the appellant has failed to file an application under Section.
5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. When the learned counsel for the appellant is confronted on this point, he frankly stated that if this appeal is time barred, he will not press the same.
8. From perusal of record, it transpires that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment/decree on 26-03-2018 and appeal against the impugned judgment has been filed in this court on 14-05-2019, after about 1 year of the passing of the impugned judgment.
9. It is settled principle of law that Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits the exclusion of time only for proceedings prosecuted in good faith in wrong forum, therefore, in order to make out significa nt cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, an appellant must prove that he had acted in good faith in presentin g his appeal in the wrong court.
Good faith has been defined in Clause 7 of Section 2 of the Limitation Act as under:- "Good faith, nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention."
Now, if an appellant proves that he had filed his appeal in the wrong forum/court despite due care and attention, it means that the presentation of appeal in the wrong forum/court was on account of circumstances beyond his control. But, in the instant case, the provi sion of Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 are plain beyond any doubt and as there is also no complication whatsoever about the facts relevant to the question of the proper forum for filing the appeal. It is crystal clear that the presentation of the appeal in the District Court Gilgit was an act of gross negligence on the part of counsel for the appellant. Even the counsel for the appellant has not bothered to file an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1908. Wisdom in this respect is drawn from the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1977 SC 102 .
10. For the forgoing reasons, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal is hopelessly time barred which is dismissed accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Record and proceedings of both the courts below be remitted back. File.