' The only question involved in this revision petition is, as to whether the plaint in the present suit was presented within the prescribed period of limitation. This dispute has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. Through a registered deed of sale the petitioners purchased agricultural land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas from Mst. Jannat daughter of Meeran for a sum of Rs,400. This sale was pre-empted by the respondent by filing a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. From the endorsement in the plaint, it appears that the plaint was presented on 9th September, 1976 when it was noted by the Reader of the Court that the Presiding Officer was on casual leave and therefore the suit to come up before him on 10th of September, 1976. On 10th September, 1976 the learned Civil Judge directed that the suit be registered and summons be issued. This suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. However, no objection regarding presentation of the plaint was taken. It was alleged that since the proper court-fee had been affixed after the period of limitation the suit was barred by time. The learned trial Court framed six issues in the case.
However, no issue regarding the plea of limitation was claimed or framed by the trial Court. It appears that an objection was, subsequently, raised that the plaint was presented on the last date of limitation i.e, 9-9-1976 to the Reader of the Court and not the Civil Judge himself and as such this presentation had no validity in the eye of law as the Reader had not been authorised to receive the plaint. This objection was noted by the learned Civil Judge but no positive decision appears to have been taken in this regard. The trial Court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that since the plaintiff had failed to affix the proper court-fee within limitation the suit had become barred by time. This view was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mst. Walayat Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another PLD 1979 SC 821.
' The respondent challenged this dismissal by filing an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 5th of July, 1982. The learned lower appellate Court held that the deficient court-fee had been made good during the period granted by the trial Court and as such no possible exception could be taken to the same. The learned Additional District Judge also found no force in the objection of the petitioners regarding improper presentation of the plaint.
He, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the respondent on 5th of July, 1982. This judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh has been assailed in this revision petition.
4. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since proper court-fee not been affixed on the plaint at the time of filing of the suit, the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any time to make up the deficiency. This contention of the learned counsel, however, cannot be accepted in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor and another PLD 1984 SC 289. It is not denied by the learned counsel that deficiency was made within the period granted by the trial Court in this behalf.
5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 9th of September, 1976 the plaint was presented to the Reader of the Court and not to the Presiding Officer and as the Reader had no authority to receive the plaint the presentation on 9th of September, 1976 was no presentation in the eye of law and the suit shall be deemed to have been filed on 10th of September, 1976 when it came up before the Court itself for the first time. On these premises it was argued that the suit was barred by time as the last date of limitation for filing the suit was 9th of September, 1976. The first thing to be noticed in this behalf is that no such objection was raised in the written statement nor was any issue claimed on this aspect of the matter during the trial of the suit. It appears, however, that at the time of final arguments an objection to the above effect was taken on which only a vague finding was recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned 'Additional District Judge took notice of this plea and repelled it.
6. In my view the contention of the learned counsel has no force. The question as to whether the Reader had been authorised to receive the plaint in the absence of the Presiding Officer involves inquiry into facts and as such should have been raised in the written statement or at least during the trial. Generally all officials' acts are presumed to have been correctly done and it was for the petitioner to have established by evidence that the Reader had no authority to receive the plaint on 9th of September, 1976 when the Presiding Officer was on leave. Order 4, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
Provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such other official as it appoints in this behalf. This rule does not require that the authorisation must be in writing. It may well be verbal. Even the petitions or plaints put in the box outside the Court are deemed to be valid presentation. Reference in this connection may be made to Lahore High Court Rules, Volume I, Chapter 1-B. In Shamas-uzZaman and others v. Abdul Ghafoor PLD 1971 Azad J&K 16, it was observed that when sub-Judge is on leave, the office remains open and the plaints are received by his Clerks, it shall be presumed that the Clerk has been authorised to receive the plaint and the authorisation need not be through a formal order in writing. The Clerk can be authorised even verbally to receive the plaint. This judgment is on all fours with the present case. It may also be noted that when the suit came up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge no objection regarding the presentation to his Clerk was raised which also shows that the presentation was to an authorised person.
7. Even otherwise if no arrangement had been made for receiving the plaints in the absence of the Presiding Officer by the Civil Judge himself or by the District Judge, under no principle of law, a plaintiff can be non-suited on the ground of having not presented the plaint before the duly authorised officer. It was the duty of the Court to have made arrangement to receive the plaints in its absence and the failure to do so cannot prejudice the rights of any particular person. It is well- settled that an act or omission of a Court cannot prejudice any party (ACTUS CURLE NEMINEM GRAVABIT).
8. There is another aspect of the matter. If the Presiding Officer was on leave on 9th of September, 1976, and there was no one authorised to receive the plaint in his absence, the Court should be taken to have been closed during the absence of the Presiding Officer even though his office was working. This seems to be the only reasonable view to take in the circumstances of the case. Under section 4 of the Limitation Act, the period during which the Court was closed has to be deducted in computing the period of limitation. Allowing this period the plaint would be clearly within time. This view is supported by the case of Noor Muhammad v. Ghulaman and others AIR 1934 Lah. 622(1). In the precedent case, the subordinate Judge of Sarrarala also used to work at Ludhiana, a plaint was presented to the Naib-Sheriff of the Court, who had no authority to receive the plaint. The suit came up before the subordinate Judge for the first time on 25th of November, 1929 on his return, by which time the suit had become barred by time. An objection was raised that the suit was not within time and liable to be dismissed as such, as the Naib-Sheriff had no authority to receive the plaint in terms of Order IV, rule 1, C.P.C. This objection was, however, repelled and it was held that if no arrangements have been made during the period of absence of the Presiding Officer for presentation of plaints, at Sarnarala, the Court will be deemed to have been closed. Similarly in Shamas-uz-Zaman's case it was held that if the plaint was presented within the prescribed period of limitation to a Clerk of the Court when the Presiding Officer was on leave, the presentation would be presumed to have been validly made as all officials' acts are presumed to be correct.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Khuda Bakhsh and another v.
Muhammad Ismail PLD 1978 Lah. 1049 and Syed Akhtar Hussain v. Wall Bahadur and others PLD 1981 Lah.
326. These two judgments are entirely distinguishable and have no applicability in the present case. The objection in these cases was repelled on the ground that the Reader had been authorised to receive the plaint. These two authorities do not lay down that in case, where the Presiding Officer is away and r.o person authorised to receive the plaint was available the presentation on the next day, would make the suit barred by time.
' The revision petition. Has no force. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision dimissed.