1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendant-debtor against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The respondent's suit was decreed against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal and civil revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' The amount involved was Rs,993.30. Learned counsel frankly stated that the liability regarding the original amount due from the petitioner is not denied. He, however, vehemently contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He also contended that the petitioner should not have been burdened with any amount in addition to the original amount due. In other words, he argued that in any case it could not have been awarded in favour of the respondent.
3. The liability to pay the original amount not having been denied, we would not bless the wrongful appropriation by the petitioner of public money which belonged to the respondent, by granting leave to appeal; which falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the plea of limitation before this Court at this stage in this context is of no help to the petitioner for seeking leave to appeal.
4. Regarding the question of interest/penalty we would not grant leave to appeal. It cannot at all be argued that when the suit was filed against the petitioner in 1978 or when the decree was passed against him in 1982, the interest penalty could not be made a part of the decree. Be that as it may, the High Court's judgment, as it is, cannot be treated as having suffered from any legal defect in this behalf when it was passed on 3-12-1983. For all these reasons, leave to appeal is refused as it is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal.