1. ' INAYAT ELAHI KHAN, J.-The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that against the Award No. 30 of the Collector Land Acquisition, TDRO, Haripur, dated 27-7.1971, Dilbar Khan and others (respondents) preferred an objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking a reference to the civil Court. The objection petition was accordingly forwarded by the Collector Land Acquisition to the Referee Court (Additional District Judge-I Haripur), The Court summoned the Collector Land Acquisition, TDRO, Haripur and WAPDA through its Chairman but since they failed to appear in spite of service they were proceeded against ex parte on 7-12-1976 and the ex parte evidence of the objectors was recorded. The objection petition was partially accepted and the impugned decree was passed in their favour on 15-2-1977. Feeling aggrieved the Chairman WAPDA and the Land Acquisition Collector moved separate applications bearing No. 14/6 dated 26-2-1977 and 17/6 dated 16-3-1977 respectively for setting aside "the ex parte decree. The learned Acquisition Judge after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the application of the Collector on 19-2-1978 on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for his nonappearance as his representative had earlier appeared in Court but later on absented without assigning any reason. The application of the Chairman WAPDA was also dismissed by the same order as no reason whatsoever was given for his non-appearance in Court. All that was stated in the application was that the WAPDA would suffer heavy loss in case the ex parte decree was not set aside. After the dismissal of their applications the Land Acquisition Collector and the WAPDA had preferred this appeal (R. F. A. 127 of 1979). However, instead of challenging the order of the Referee Court dated 19-2-1978 dismissing their applications for setting aside the ex parte decree they challenged the of iginal ex parte decree dated 15-2-1977 as is evident from the opening-sheet of the appeal and the prayer clause of the memorandum of appeal. The opening- sheet of the appeal shows that the appeal is filed against the decree dated 15-2-1977 and it is specifically stated that this is an appeal against the ex parte decree. The order imvsned in appeal is also mentioned to be that of Additional District Judge," Haripur, dated 15-2-1977 and the prayer clause of the appeal is to the effect that "For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, it is prayed that this appeal may be accepted, the ex parte judgment/decree of the learned Court below may be set aside and the Reference may be ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout". Nothing was done to challenge in accordance with law the order of the Acquisition Judge dated 19-2-1978 whereby both the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree were dismissed. It may be mentioned that the appeal was preferred in this Court on 18'4-1979 which was returned by the office for completion. The appeal was ultimately re-submitted on 22-4-1979 after due compliance.
2. The record shows that the application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree-sheet of the lower Court was submitted on 22-2-1979 and the copies obtained on 10-3- 1979. It is evident that the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the. Lower Court were applied for much beyond the period of limitation prescribed for appeal. In fact the certified copies were applied for more than 2 years after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal and thus the benefit under , section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be availed of by the' appellants which provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal etc. The day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from shall be excluded, It need not be emphasised that if the time for filing the appeal has run out a subsequent application for copy would not entitle the appellant to claim benefit under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The benefit could be claimed only if the certified copies were applied for at a time when the right of appeal subsisted. Since the appellants failed to make an application for copies of the judgment and decree of the lower Court before the expiry of the time allowed by law to prefer the appeal no reliance could be placed on the provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act to claim benefit thereof. The learned counsel for the appellants also did not dispute this legal position. Thus the appeal against the ex parte decree being hopelessly barred by limitation is accordingly dismissed.
3. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.