MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge/Zila Qazi, Lower Chitral dated 13.03.2023, whereby appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-IV, Chitral dated 24.10.2017 decreeing the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff, was dismissed being timed barred.
2. Arguments heard and record' perused.
3. It is reflected from the record that the judgment of the learned trial Court, which was assailed by the petitioners' through Civil Appeal No.6/13 of 2023 was passed by the learned trial, Court on: 24.10.2017, copies of the judgment were received by petitioners on 21.11.2017 while the appeal was filed by them on 10.04.2018. The important aspect was delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioners, for condonation of which, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was filed, wherein at serial No.3 it was contended that "when the titled case was received by this office, it had already become time barred due to which the case could not be filed within time, as great public interest is involved in the case, therefore, the instant appeal is being filed with delay to safeguard the public interest." The appeal was filed after more than four months, which as per law was required to be filed within a period of thirty days. No doubt, the time spent in getting the attested copies of the judgment within the purview of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 is excluded from count. Similarly, the delay of time in filing of the appeal, application or suit etc. may be condoned but subject to plausible and reasonable explanation. It is by now settled law that one who seeks the condonation of delay is required to explain each and every day with plausible explanation but in the instant matter, there is no explanation much less plausible explanation even for a single day of delay then what to say about the delay of four months. There is no cavil with the proposition that delay of each day must properly and satisfactorily be explained and this is no ground that matter was delayed because it had to pass through the hands of different officials, due to which sufficient time was consumed. Reliance is placed on the cases of "East Pakistan v.
Abdul Hamid Darfi and others" (1970 SCMR 558), "Federation of Pakistan v. Niaz Ahmad" (1997 SCMR 959), "Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan" (1981 SCMR 37) and "Government of N.W.F.P. and others v. Ahmad Shah and others" (2007 YLR 1781). It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid ground is not a valid ground for extension of period of limitation, and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The civil revision deserves dismissal on this score alone.
4. The contention of Mr. Khwaja Salah-ud-Din, learned A.A.G representing the petitioners that great interest of public is involved and that the petitioners are Provincial Government, the instant petition may be entertained is also misconceived. Law is the same for juristic person as well as natural person, individual or particular persons. Since, the Government is a juristic person and thus more responsibilities and obligations were there on part of the Government to be vigilant in filing of the appeal within the requisite period. If the delay has been occasioned or caused by any official/ officer he may be questioned, damages may be sought from him and he may be dealt with in accordance with law but it does not mean that the law should be interpreted for government otherwise than that an individual. In the case of "Province of Punjab through Secretary Education v. Kishwar Quaddus Paul" (2004 SCMR 571) it was held by the apex Court that: "This Court has time and again held that delay taking place in, the Government offices in the process of filing petitions, could not be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the instant case there is delay of fourteen days in filing the petition for leave to appeal and each day's delay has not been satisfactorily accounted for. It was bounden duty of the petitioner to have pursued the matter for the purpose of filing the petition as soon as the judgment was passed on 9- 8-2002. The petitioner cannot be allowed to place blame upon his subordinate officers who though were also equally responsible to expedite the process of filing the petition within time. It must be noted that delay in filing petition has created vested right in favour of respondent which cannot be lightly ignored unless strong case is made out showing sufficient cause accounting each day's delay. But in the instant case no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation or delay of fourteen days therefore, this petition is dismissed as time barred."
"2. It has been noticed that in the cases filed on behalf of the Federal and Provincial Governments the departments file proceedings in Courts after the period of limitation without seeking condonation of delay on sustainable legal grounds except saying that the time was consumed in completing departmental formalities, whereas on the other hand the settled law is that on the point of limitation Government departments are not to be treated differently.
Be that as it may, we consider it appropriate to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of the learned Attorney-General to suggest ways and means while remaining within four corners of the existing laws so as to stop this malady. On the receipt of the suggestions from the committee order will be passed accordingly".
The recommendations as per the direction of the Court were submitted before the Court which were for the convenience are reproduced as under: 5.0. In all cases where the appeal is barred by time the administrative ministry must, in writing, communicate to the Ministry of Law/Law Officer responsible for tiling the appeal the reasons for the delay. The delay of each day must be cogently explained. Reasons like time is consumed in moving the file from one desk to another, or that the matter escaped attention or that the approval of the competent authority took time etc. have been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court. Such reasons must not be advanced.
5.1. Every petition/appeal which is barred by time must be accompanied by a certificate of the ASC/AOR responsible for the petition/appeal that he has examined the application for the condonation of delay in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and is of the view that the delay of each day has been cogently explained and that it is a fit case for the condonation of appeal.
5.2. The application for condonation of delay must also identify the member (s) of the staff and/or officer (s) responsible for the delay. Their name, designation name and address must be stated in the application. The application must also clearly state the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the person(s) concerned and the stage of the proceedings. It must also specify the steps taken by the department to assess the revenue loss caused by the delay in filing the appeal and the steps taken to recover it from the delinquent officer.
5.3 The Advocate Supreme Court/ Advocate-on-record responsible for the petition/appeal must certify that he has examined the application for condonation of delay and it contains the name and particulars of the person responsible for the delay and the details of the actions initiated against him.
5. In the case of "Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum v. Abdul Khaliq through Legal Heirs and others" (PLD 2002 SC 436) it was reported by the Supreme Court that: "It has been pointed out number of times that cases pertaining to Federal/Provincial Government or autonomous bodies instituted beyond limitation prescribed by law before subordinate Court, High Court and this Court without assigning any justification acceptable under the law for not approaching the Court within time and in the applications seeking condonation of delay, if filed, invariably the plea is taken that the has been spent in completion of departmental proceedings, therefore, delay may be condoned. The concerned department must know that delay of limitation in filing of proceedings can only be condoned if it is sought for on sufficient grounds otherwise in absence thereof no special indulgence can be shown to such department because it is well- settled that no preferential treatment can be offered to the Government department or autonomous bodies. Their cases have to be dealt with same manner as the cases of an ordinary litigant/citizen. In this behalf, reliance is placed on Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager and 3 others (1998 SCMR 307), Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Nazar Muhammad Fatiana and others 1998 SCMR 2376, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others v. Jamaludd in and others 1996 SCMR 727, Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Messrs Azhar Brothers Ltd. 1990 SCMR 1059 and Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), Services General Administration and information Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC 396."
6. In the case of "Government of The Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Khan and another" (2003 SCMR 829) it was observed by the apex Court that "In our considered opinion the delay appears to be deliberate and intentional which aspect of the matter should be taken care of by the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, who should conduct a thorough probe and fix responsibility for said delay and action be initiated against the delinquents to stop such condemnable practice in future. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, for compliance and report to the Registrar of this Court within a fortnight"
7. It has repeatedly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that insofar as limitation is concerned, the government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its sources are much larger than those possessed by the ordinary litigants. Reference may also be made to the cases of "Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Humid Darji and others" (1970 SCMR 558), Government of Baluchistan v. Muhammad Ibrahim" (2000 SCMR 1028), "Government of N.W.F.P. and others v. Abdul Malik" (1994 SCMR 833), "The Deputy Director Food v. Syed Safdar Hussain" (1979 SCMR 45) and "Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshank M. Dastur and others"
8. Adverting to the factual aspect of the case, the plaintiff relied upon his own statement pertaining to the relief asked for by him in juxtaposition with the written statement of the petitioners. Plaintiff sought the recovery of Rs. 1,29,08,835/-as outstanding amount against the petitioners, for which, the petitioners in their written statement replied as under: When, the witness of the petitioners appeared in the witness box, admitted in his cross- examination that an amount of Rs. 1,29,08835/- was outstanding against the petitioners. The claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants not only in the written statement but also as the witness against ale plaintiff when entered in the witness box. It is pertinent to mention that suit was filed on 10.02.2017 and was decreed on 24.10.2017 against which the appeal was filed on 28.04.2018 and was decided on 13.03.2023 and thereafter, this petition was filed 31st March, 2023 despite the clear admission of the defendant in their written statement and in term of Order XII, Rule 1 (Admissions) the Court was required to decide the suit in term of Order XII or XV, Rule 1, C.P.C, keeping in view that the parties were not at issues and similarly, the petitioners were required to have a look on their pleadings and the statement of their witness before filing of appeal an this petition. Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and decreed it in favour of plaintiff/ respondent. Learned appellate Court has correctly dismissed the appeal. I have gone through from the record as annexed with the petition and found that the judgements and decrees are not open to any interference by exercising the jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C, hence, this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine.