' Plaintiffs are, in second appeal, before this Court. Facts which gave rise to it are:- Plaintiffs brought a civil suit against respondents, in the Civil Court at Islamabad, for possession through ejectment from the rented building situate at Islamabad and for recovery of compensation for use and occupation at the stated rate and also for compensation for restoration of the rented building to its former position. Respondents resisted the suit. On 26-7-1987, the Trial Court gave decree for ejectment and compensation at the rate of Rs,4,000 per mensem from 1-3-1985, to the date of actual vacation of the building by the respondents. Possession of the rented building has already been taken by the appellants but aggrieved by that part of the decree which refused the relief of claimed compensation, appellants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Islamabad. It was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, who on consideration of objection in regard to limitation, dismissed it as barred by limitation on 29-5-1988, but gave no decision on merits of the case. It is this judgment which is under appeal in this Court.
2. From the above, it is clear that the only point for decision in the appeal is whether it was barred by limitation as held by the learned Judge below. For proper decision of the point, some relevant facts need be stated. Judgment of the Trial Court was announced on 26-7-1987. Decree-sheet also bears the same date. Appellants applied for certified copies of judgment and decree of the Trial Court on 28-7-1987. Endorsement of the Copying Agency indicates that certified copies were ready for delivery on 24-8-1987 but these were actually received by the appellants on 31-8-1987.
Memorandum of appeal was presented in the Court below on 24-9-1987. Office raised no objection in regard to bar of limitation. On 27-9-1987, appeal was admitted to hearing by learned Additional District Judge. Order-sheet shows that appeal was adjourned on number of dates and was eventually dismissed on 29-5-1988 as having been held barred by limitation.
3. With reference to the endorsement of the Copying Agency and the original receipt given to the appellants by the Copying Agency, it was argued by Muhammad Sadiq Abbasi, learned counsel that the appellants were not at fault and their appeal, on proper calculation of the time required for obtaining certified copies was within limitation. Reliance was placed upon Muhammad Bakhsh v.
Nizam Din PLD 1978 Lah. 31, a Division Bench judgment of this Court. As against this, Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case of Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 SCMR 157 to contend that "time requisite" deductible under section 12 of Limitation Act, 1908 commenced from the date of application for certified copies and ended when those were ready for delivery and the time was not further extended to the actual date of receiying of copies by the appellants.
4. On consideration, in my opinion, on point of limitation, case requires reconsideration by the Court below. Ordinarily, the total number of days beginning with the day on which application for copies of judgment and decree was made and ending on the day on which copies were made ready for delivery -must be treated as "time requisite" for obtaining copies for purposes of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908. But what is the "time requisite" for obtaining copies, in any particular case, is one of fact and must be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.
Normal rule is that the time deductible under section '12 commences from the date of application and ends with the date when the copies are ready for delivery but it can also be further extended as part of a "time requisite" if the delay takes place by reason of some act or neglect of the office of the Copying Agency in giving wrong information to the applicant as to the date when the copies would be ready or in giving no information at all. If such are the circumstances, a litigant can legitimately ask the Court to treat the time falling between the date when the copies are ready and the date when they are actually delivered to him as an essential component of the "time requisite" for obtaining copies. In the present case, original receipt said to have been issued to the appellants and annexed, does not show, 24-8-1987 as the date when the copies would be ready for delivery. In fact, it records four dates only viz. 26-7-1987, the date of the announcement of judgment, 28-7- 1987, the date on which the application for copies was filed and two other dates i.e, 10-8-1987 and 30-8-1987. At the hearing Mr. Abbasi pointed out that the appellants had been visiting the office of the Copying Agency, time and again but they were never informed that the certified copies would be or were ready for delivery on 24-8-1987, the date given in the endorsement by the Copying Agency. Learned counsel also urges that though this point as such was not mentioned in the memorandum of first appeal, yet at its hearing, original receipt bearing above dates was shown to the learned appellate Judge but curiously the same does not find mention in the final judgment.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents, who was also the counsel before the Court below, expressed his inability to either affirm or deny the above statement.
Therefore, it is to be seen whether the office gave any particular date to the appellants when the copies would be ready for delivery and if so what was that date. In default of the required material this point cannot be determined by this Court. The case, therefore, requires remit and proper forum for its determination would be the Court below. In taking the above view, I have derived assistance from the cases of Rahim Bakhsh through legal heirs and others v. Mst. Pathani through legal heirs and others PLD 1985 SC 324, Ahmad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Ayub PLD 1988 SC 258, Fazal Rehman v. Karim Gul and others 1988 SCMR 1256, Muhammad Bakhsh v. Nizam Din PLD 1978 Lah. 31, Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Sharif and others NLR 1980 Civil (Lah.) 107, Muhammad Shahbaz and others v. Ghulam Rasool 1987 CLC 1512, Shafqat Hussain Shah v. Sakina Begum and others 1987 CLC 664 (Lah.), Cantonment Board Kharian through Executive Officer Kharian v. Muhammad Shafi 1987 CLC 1612 (Lah.)
5. In view of the aforesaid, second appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 29-5-1988 are set aside and the case is remanded to him for inquiry and a fresh decision on question of limitation in accordance with law and the observations made above. It may be noted that on the point of limitation, learned Additional District Judge shall take evidence of the parties and also look into the relevant record of the Copying Agency to find out whether the contention in regard to the wrong information given to the appellants was correct or not. In case he holds that the appeal was filed in time or that the delay in its preferment was condonable, he shall also give decision on merits. The costs of this appeal shall be- borne by the parties as incurred. Parties have been directed through their counsel to appear before the Court below on 5-2-1989. Records be returned quickly.