In the instant case the judgment was delivered by the District Judge as appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 22-3-1987, however since the ejectment petition was filed on 14- 4-1978 prior to the enforcement of N.-W.F.P. Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 which has taken away the right of second appeal, as such the SAO is competent. The appellant had applied for the copies of the judgment and decree dated 22-3-1987 on 24-4-1987 and were delivered the same to her on 23-4-1987. She was required under the unamended provisions of subsection (4) of section 15 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to file the instant SA.O. Within 30 days from the date of the appellate order but she has filed the same after more than 30 days for which application (C.M. No.55/87 under Section 5 of- the Limitation Act was filed along with the SA.O.
Which was admitted for hearing subject . To all valid objections.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection of limitation under contention that time allowed for filing appeal by special law i.e. The Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 being different from the Limitation Act would exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. In support of the view he placed reliance on PLD 1982 SC 218, 1983 SCMR 1239 and 1988 SCMR 1863 (1).
From the other side there could not be referred any case-law to the contrary that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was only applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
3. Since the appeal has been found time-barred and Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 4 such in spite of the competency of SA.O. The same is hereby dismissed along with the C.M. For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is, however, made no order as to costs.