1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- A preliminary objection with regard to limitation has been raised from respondent's side in this appeal through special leave to appeal, which was granted subject to any objection, in this behalf. The main grounds taken in the application are absence of the appellant from Karachi at the time of the announcement of the impugned judgment, his ignorance about the same due to the said reason for a long time, his financial difficulties; obtaining of necessary copies in two instalments; and, lastly time taken for preparation of the case after the expiry of the period of limitation.
2. It is not disputed that the period of limitation had expired even before the application for copy of the impugned judgment was made. That being so, every day of 41 days period consumed by the appellant A in excess of the period of limitation, has not been adequately explained. No good ground having been made out for condonation of delay, we uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal as time-barred. There shall be no order as to costs.
3. ' Before closing this order it needs to be noted that after the announcement of the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred but before the dictation of the order and before we had arisen for the day, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant made a request that the question raised in the appeal being whether the appellant could sue in forma pauperism, in the peculiar circumstances of the case involving extreme poverty of the appellant, he should be allowed time for arranging court-fee and paying the same. He was told that such a request could not be granted without issuing notice to the other side and that the same could not be done without properly constituted proceedings on a proper application.
4. ' C.M.P.K.46 of 1983 (presence as noted earlier).
5. ' The foregoing part of the order was dictated yesterday. Today, i,e, 1st February, 1983, before we could sign this order, C.M.P. K-46 of 1983 came up before us in which similar prayer has been made as is noted in the above concluding paragraph.
6. ' After hearing both the learned counsel (learned counsel for the respondents stated that he has notice and that he is ready to argue) we consider it fit and proper to leave this question for the learned trial Court to decide. The petitioner if he chooses to pursue the matter further by making payment of the court-fee, if so advised, may do so by making an application under Order XXXIII, rule 15 and section 149, C.P.C. Before the learned trial Court. The question of limitation in the suit will also be decided by the said Court after considering all available pleas to be raised by either side.
7. We, however, remark that this Court has concluded the question of application for suing as a pauper without dismissing it on merits. The petitioner has lost the appeal in this behalf, only on ground of limitation.
8. ' We have now signed the earlier order also.
9. Appeal dismissed.
10. 198.4 SC MR 1536 Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE--Petitioner versus Mistri ABDUL AZIZ--Respondent Civil Petition No, 810 of 1983, decided on 14th February, 1984.
11. (On ApFcal from the judgment, dated 9-5-1983 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No, 496 of 1983).
12. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---A rt. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2--Temporary injunction--High Court leaving order of District Judge and dismissing petitioner's application for temporary injunction--No interference with order of High Court found to be called for--Leave to appeal refused--Trial Court, however, decided to dispose of petitioner's suit within three months. [p. 1537] A et seq Mirza Hafeezur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate- on--Record for Petitioner.
13. Nemo for Respondent.
14. Date of hearing: 14th February, 1984.
15. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The petitioner, Muhammad Siddique, whose house adjoins the house of Mistri Abdul Aziz (respondent herein) who is running a flour machine and a Painja in his house felt disturbed by the operation of the said machine and Painja by the respondent as it produced vibrations and was allegedly damaging his property. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from operating the said flour machine and Painja and also moved an application for a temporary injunction, as a measure of interim relief.
16. ' The learned trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction but, on appeal, the learned District Judge set aside his order and granted the temporary injunction in his favour.
17. However, on revision, the High Court, after perusing the report of a Local Commissioner (Dr. A. Basit, Advocate who was appointed by it, with the consent of both the parties) reversed the order of the District Judge and dismissed the application for temporary injunction by his order, dated 9-5-1983.
18. He, however, directed that the respondent shall not operate the flour machine and the Painja after sunset. He further directed that the suit shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within three months.
19. ' The petitioner has now moved this Court seeking leave to appeal against the above order.
20. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not consider that any interference with the order of the High Court is called for, but strongly feel that the suit itself should have been decided expeditiously.
21. ' In this connection, we note that the learned Judge in the High Court had directed the learned trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within three months vide its order, dated 9-5-1983.
22. It is a matter of regret that even though over nine months have elapsed since the said order was passed but the suit is still pending.
23. ' We direct the learned trial Court to give priority to this suit and to dispose it of within three months from today. In case he is not able to do so he shall submit a report to the Registrar, Lahore High Court giving reasons for his failure to decide the suit within the aforesaid period, with a copy to the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of Pakistan, Branch Registry at Lahore.
24. ' This petition, with these directions, stands disposed of.