This revision petition by Qasim is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jhang dated 24th of July, 1975 whereby his appeal from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang on 21st of June, 1974 returning 11im the plaint of his suit for presentation before the Custodian was, dismissed as being barred by time.
2. On 6th'of August, 1973, the petitioner instituted a suit for a declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 143 kanals and 10 marlas situated at Mauza Issa Wala, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang and the order of the Collector, Jhang dated 29th of May, 1973 and Mutation No. 2625 attested on the basis thereof were ultra vires and ineffectual and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and ownership.
3. The suit was contested on behalf of respondents Nos.1, 2 and 5 while ex parte proceedings were taken against respondents Nos.3 and 4 as they were evacuees and no body appeared on their behalf in spite of service by a proclamation in a newspaper.
4. One of the objections raised by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 5 was that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the property in dispute had been treated as evacuee. The Senior Civil Judge, Jhang vide his judgment dated 21st of June, 1974 upheld the objection and holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred to give the declaration as prayed for by the petitioner returned him the plaint of his suit for presentation before the Custodian.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 16th of November, 1974. The Addl. District Judge, Jhang vide his judgment dated 24th of July, 1975 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by fifty-seven days. Hence this revision petition.
6. On a perusal of the record of the lower appellate Court, it transpires that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court on 22nd of July, 1974 which was the last date by which the appeal could be filed. Actually the limitation expired on 21st of July, 1974 but since it was a holiday on account of being Sunday, the appeal could be filed on 22nd of July, 1974.
The copy was completed on 20th of September, 1974 but the petitioner obtained its delivery on 15th of November, 1974. The lower appellate Court did not condone the period from 20th of September, 1974 to 15th of November, 1974 and consequently dismissed the appeal under section 3 of the Limitation Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to the condonation of the delay even for the period from the date on which the copy was ready to the date on which it was actually delivered to him. In support of this contention, he has cited West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi (PLD 1973 SC 222). This precedent, however, is of no avail to him as according to it, the time "requisite" for obtaining copies which can be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act is the time which is taken between the date of application and the date when the copies are ready, but can be further extended if further delay takes place by reason of the carelessness of the office in giving the wrong information to the applicant as to the date on which the copies would be ready, or in giving no information at all. No such reason was pleaded by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal filed in the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this Court had obtained an adjournment on the ground that he had instructed the petitioner to verify from the record of the Copying Agency, Jhang as to whether he had been given the date of 15th of November, 1974 for the delivery of the copy so as to show that he was not liable for the delay in the delivery of the copy. Today learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that his client is not in possession of any evidence which could show that he was given the date of 15th of November, 1974 for delivery of the copy. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have relied on Ahmad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Ayub (A L D 1988 SC 258) wherein it was held that the period between the date when the copy was ready and the date when it was delivered could not be excluded as of right and this delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf. The other two cases cited by them viz. Abdul Khaliq Chaudhry, Sub-Engineer v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha and others (1987 SCMR 313) and Cantonment Board Kharian through Executive Officer, Kharian v.
Muhammad Shari (1987 CLC 1612) are also to the same effect. In the circumstances, since the petitioner failed to give any explanation for the period between the date on which the copy was ready and the date on which he obtained its delivery the learned lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in holding that hip appeal was barred by time and dismissing the same on that ground.
8. Accordingly, there is no force in this revision and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.