' ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, C J.--The appeal is addressed against the order of learned Additional Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad, passed on May 31, 1987.
2. Mian Abdul Aziz, plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs,24,999, against the defendant-appellant as arrears for construction of the building of a Dispensary at Lamian Pattian.
It was averred that the plaintiff acquired contract for the construction of building of Dispensary vide tender submitted on August 23, 1979. The building was being constructed according to the prescribed design. When the construction was in progress, the defendant-appellant, through a letter of February 11, 1980, directed to stop the work so that the construction was shifted to another place at a distance of round about two miles. The plaintiff gave notice to the Department on September 10, 1980 for payment of compensation for the work done by him. He claimed a sum of Rs,32,545, but on account of his inability to pay the court-fee, he brought a suit for Rs,24,999. The suit was instituted on October 2, 1980. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit. Nevertheless, the trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff for payment of the aforesaid amount. The present appeal preferred before this Court against the order of learned Additional Sub-Judge, was presented on June 30, 1987.
3. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable as it was presented without the previous sanction of the Government. Moreover, the sanction of the Government was accorded on July 5, 1987, after the expiry of the period of limitation. Thus, in case it is assumed that the appeal was presented with the sanction of the Government, it shall he deemed to have been presented on the date when the Government granted the sanction i.e, July 5, 1987. In the circumstances, the appeal was patently time-barred.
4. In support of the aforesaid objection, an application was moved by the respondent for summoning the Government file to ensure as to when the Government gave sanction for institution of the appeal. The relevant file was summoned accordingly.
5. Section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Department Manual, 1984 postulates the functions, status and duties of law officers. Section 29 postulates that no suit on behalf of the State or a public officer shall be instituted without the sanction of the Government. Section 23 (1) pertains to suits. It provides that a suit by or against or affecting the State or a public officer in his official capacity or one which is brought or defended by a public officer at the public expense, shall be a suit against the Government. A suit under subsection (1) includes an appeal, an application or revision or review or application for execution of decree and any civil judicial proceedings in which the State or public officer in his official capacity, is a party or has any interest. The provisions of section 29 read with section 23 (1) suggest that no suit or appeal or revision or review or an application for execution on behalf of the State or a Government officer or against them, shall be instituted or defended, without the previous sanction of the Government. In present case, the sanction to prefer appeal against the order of learned Additional Sub-Judge was given by the Government on July 5, 1987. The impugned decision was recorded on May 31, 1987. The period of limitation was 30 days. It is not disputed on behalf of the appellant that the period within which the appeal was preferred against the impugned order by virtue of sanction of the Government, has obviously exceeded the prescribed limitation.
6. An identical proposition was raised before the Supreme Court in "Azad Government v. Moeen- ud-Din Shah'' decided on May 16, 1987. That was a case of a civil servant who was ascribed an allegation of misconduct. An appeal preferred by him before the Service Tribunal 'was decided in his favour. Petition for leave to appeal was preferred against the order of Service Tribunal. An objection was raised that the petition for leave to appeal was moved without previous sanction of the Government. Like the case under consideration, it was further explained that sanction of the Government was granted after expiry of prescribed limitation. The learned Chief Justice who recorded the judgement of the Court, made the following observations:-- "From the examination of the file, it appears that the Government had approved the institution of the appeal long after the period of limitation and institution of the petition for leave to appeal, on 20-2-1986. The petition for leave to appeal, it may be observed, was filed on 4-4-1986, the last day of limitation.
' We may here record our appreciation for Mirza Nisar who had very rightly conceded that the approval order referred to above made after the period of limitation would not validate his act of filing the petition for leave to appeal because after the expiry of period of limitation, a right had come to reside in the respondent which could not be snatched away from him after the remedy under law has become barred.
' In view of the above there is no alternative but to hold that the petition for leave to appeal has been filed by a counsel who was not authorised to file it. Since the appeal flows from the petition for leave to appeal, the appeal also becomes incompetent and stands rejected with costs."
' The preliminary objection, therefore, succeeds. The appeal is dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.