SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the Federation of Pakistan to examine whether the time taken by the Copying Agency, in not sending the certified copy of the judgment by V.P.P., was the time requisite which had to be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act.
2. The plaintiff/respondent Mrs. Riaz Latif was employed as Headmistress, Loco Shed Middle School P.W.R., Lahore. She improved her qualifications by clearing B.A.,LL.B.Examination in 1977. She claimed reimbursement of the educational expenses for improving her qualifications and four advance increments as was permissible under the Rules. Ultimately she instituted a Civil Suit on 3-9-1979 claiming a declaration to that effect. The filing of the Written Statement was delayed by the appellant whereupon an order was passed on 2-3-1980 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure closing the case permitting at the same time the appellant to participate in the further proceedings. A Written Statement was filed, three issues were framed, evidence was recorded and the judgment was pronounced on 17-7-1980 granting the requisite declaration to the plaintiff.
3. An application for a certified copy of the judgment was made on the prescribed form on 24-7- 1980. It was definitely recorded thereon that the certified copy be sent to the Law Officer, Pakistan Railway Headquarters Office, Lahore by V.P.P. When it was not sent till 16-2-1984, another application was made and the copy collected personally on 19-2-1984. On 21st of February, 1984, an appeal was filed with the District Judge alongwith an application under section 12 of the Limitation Act claiming exclusion of the time taken by the Copying Agency in delivering the copy. This was contested by the respondent and the Additional District Judge rejected the appeal in limine holding that the appeal was time barred and appellant was not entitled to get the time excluded.
The reasons recorded were as under:-- "(i) It is also to be noted that the Copying Agency is under no obligation to inform the applicant, or, in absence of deposit of money to cover expenses is under no obligation to send copies by post. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that the money was deposited for sending the copies of the judgment and decree. The photostat copy of the form given by the appellant for obtaining the copies does not disclose that any money was deposited.
(ii) At the lower portion of this form in the column of applicant's name and particulars it is written "Law Officer Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore by V.P.P.". This writing does not convey any sense. If the copy was to be obtained by V.P.P. There must be some clear and separate note.
This insertion by V.P.P. With the name of the applicant is meaningless.
(iii) The Copying Department being an official agency is not an agent of the applicant. It was the duty of the applicant to make very clear and unequivocal request for obtaining the copy by V.P.P. In these circumstances, no indulgence can be shown to the applicant. Moreover, if the copy was not received by V.P.P. By the applicant it should like a vigilant litigant approach the Copying Agency for obtaining the copy; of the judgment and decree."
4. A Revision Petition was filed in the High Court which was heard by the learned Judge on 21-1-1986 and dismissed in limine on 22-12-1986. The learned Judge examined a Junior Clerk of the Copying Agency and recorded the following findings:- "(i) On 17-4-1985, Malook Ali, Junior Clerk of the Sessions Court, Lahore appeared with the record and his statement was recorded by me wherein he deposed that a court-fee of Rs,4 only had been affixed on the application, whereof Rs,3 were towards the copying charges and the copy thereon was prepared on 4-9-1980 and was also made ready on that date for delivery but no one turned up to collect it on that date nor even later, until 19-2-1984, when it was handed over, after recovering the charges remaining unpaid in the shape of court-fee stamp of the value of Rs, 13, on the basis of an application bearing the date 16-2-1984, filed by the Pakistan Railways. He also explained that although the words 'through V.P.P.' had been written with the description of the applicant at the bottom of the form C.D.-I, it appeared that such a request would not have been made at the time of submission of this form because, firstly, such a request is not entertained in this Copying Agency and, secondly, if at all it may have been so made and entertained at that time then the copy could not have remained unattended for that long period of nearly four years. The witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for petitioner but nothing substantial came out.
(ii) Be the above, as it may, the fact remains that after 24-7-1980 the petitioner did not inquire about the outcome of its application and has not shown any interest in obtaining the copy for almost four years when, on 16-2-1984, an application was submitted and thereon copy was secured on 19-2-1984.
(iii) Result of the desired inquiry held by this Court is not any different.
(iv) There is no error of jurisdiction involved in the disposal below of the appeal of the petitioner and even if another view of the facts may have been possibly reached on the same material, it would not have sufficed for sustaining a revision petition."
5. Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to the decisions in Ghulla Singh v. Sohan Singh and others (AIR 1922 Lahore 219), Gurdit Singh v. Charan Das (AIR 1922 Lahore 415), The Municipal Committee, Chiniot, through Bhagwan Das, Secretary v.
Bashi Ram and others (A I. R 1922 Lahore 170) and Allab Bakhsh and another v. Municipal Committee of Rohtak (AIR 1926 Lahore 223) to contend that the time taken by the Copying Agency from the date of the application to the date of the despatch had to be excluded from the period of limitation. Besides, the question of jurisdiction had to be attended in a more meaningful manner than has been done by the two Courts.
6. What has surprised us greatly is that neither the first appellate Court nor the High Court in Ravision has taken note of the law applicable to the case. This surprise is greater because the first appellate Court was a Court of fact as well as of law and the High Court while hearing the Revision Petition had to apply the law and ensure the jurisdiction in the matter.
7. The Copying Agency Manual prescribes a form for making applications for certified copy of judgment. The relevant rules 13-A.9 and 13-A.10 on the subject read as hereunder:- "13-A.9. Every application shall, as far as possible be in form C.D.1 given at the end of these rules, and bear a two Rupees court-fee stamp together with stamps, at the option of the applicant, to cover the cost of the copy.
' Note.--It is to the interest both of the applicant and of the copying department that full particulars be given so that the record may be easily traced. No application should, however, be returned unless it fails to give the minimum information required to trace the record.
' 13-A.10. The form C.D.1 will be supplied free of charge by the copying agent of the agency.
' Note.--The copying agent at headquarters should keep an adequate supply of these forms which he will indent in the usual manner from the Superintendent, Government Printing. The copying agent will also keep outlying agencies, supplied with this form."
' The application was made by the appellant on the prescribed form and it was also mentioned that copy be supplied to him by V.P.P. As regards the supply of copies by V.P.P., the following Rules (No, 13.A-12 and 13.A-13) exist:-- "13-A.12.--(1) The applicant may pay for the copy in advance by affixing to the application stamps to cover the cost of the copy or if he does not wish to take delivery of the copy personally at an extra cost of four annas to cover registration and other postal charges.
(2) The applicant may also remit to the copying supervisor at district headquarters the cost of the copy by money order.
(3) The applicant may also, at his option, ask that the copy be sent to him by V.P.P. At an extra cost of six annas, but such an application can only be made to the copying agent at district headquarters.
' Note.-- Cash will not be accepted by money order or otherwise, nor will copies be sent out by V.P.P. At agencies other than district headquarters.
13-A.13. The copying supervisor at district headquarters will maintain a register in form C.D.6 for payments received by money order or through the V.P.P. He will convert all such payments into court-fee stamps, affix them to the application, then cancel the stamps in the manner provided in rule 37(3) and hand over the application to the copying agent against the latter's receipt in the register."
' Further provision is made with regard to sending of copies by V.P.P. As hereunder in Rule 13-A. 40:-- "Should the applicant be not present when first called to receive the copy, his copy shall be kept pending delivery for 10 days. After 10 days the copy with the application shall be filed and shall not be given to him until a fresh application with a two anna court-fee stamp is made. If a copy is required to be despatched by post it shall be despatched by the copying Agent as soon as it is ready. If a copy is required to be sent V.P.P.It should be despatched by the copying agent."
' The Statement No,III of the same Manual relevant to Form C.D.1 on which the application is to be made makes provision as hereunder:--
(1) How will delivery of the copy be taken? Personally,by registered post or V.P.P.
(2) If required by registered post an extra charge of four alums is leviable.
(3) If required by V.P.P. An extra charge of six arenas will be leviable.
(4) The only necessary advance is the Re. 0-2-0 court-fee stamp to be affixed to the application but the applicant may at his option affix stamps to cover the cost of the copy.
(5). Here state the value of stamps affixed to this application.
(6). A receipt will be given as below, if the application is personally delivered or be sent by post if one anna stamp is affixed."
8. In this background the Rules applicable to the supply of copies, the judgment of the Additional District Judge was highly conjectural and subjective. So was that of the High Court in Revision.
9. The cases referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant have no direct relevance except that they make provision for despatch of certified copies by post and that the time upto despatch has to be taken into consideration for exclusion. None of these cases refers to the particular Rules, with regard to supply of copy by V.P.P. The Rules do confer a right on the applicant to obtain certified copy by V.P.P. And makes it obligatory on the Copying Agency to comply with the request.
The responsibility of the Copying Agency could not have been made the responsibility of the party nor should the party be penalised for the I non-observance of the requirement of the rules by the Copying Agency.
10. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the first appellate Court and that of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the District Judge, Lahore, for getting the appeal disposed of in accordance with law within three months of the receipt of the file.