' This revision petition by the Province of Punjab and Inspector-General Police Punjab, hereinafter called the petitioners, arises out of the following facts:-
1. On 16-114989 Zahoor-ul-Hassan Farooqi, hereinafter called the respondent, who was serving in the Police Department as Deputy Superintendent of Police instituted a suit against the petitioners for a declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 15th December, 1931 and not 15th December, 1929 and, therefore, he was entitled to continue to be in service on the basis of his actual date of birth. By way of consequential relief he sought the issuance of a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from retiring him from service on the basis of his incorrect date of birth i,e. 15-12- 1929. Summons for the settlement of issues were issued to the petitioners. They however, failed to appear in Court and resist the suit despite service. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the respondent and vide judgment and decree dated 14-12-1989 granted him an ex parte decree for a declaration to the effect that his date of birth was 15-12-1931. The other reliefs sought by him were not granted. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 31-11990 on the short ground that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned judgment. By this revision petition the petitioners assail the correctness of the order of the learned lower Appellate Court.
2. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
3. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that the petitioners had not appended certified copy of the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court with the memorandum of their appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Admittedly they had never applied for the supply of the said copy before the filing of their appeal. It is also an admitted fact that they never moved an application before the learned lower appellate Court for the dispensation of the said copy. Under Order XLI, Rule 1, C.P.C. It is incumbent upon the appellant to append with the memorandum of his appeal certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below. The appellate Court has the power to dispense with the copy of the judgment but has no power to dispense with the copy of the decree. An appeal in which the memorandum is not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment will not be considered to have been validly presented and therefore would be liable to be dismissed unless the Court dispensed with the said copy. In the present case, not only did the petitioners not move an application for the supply of the certified copy of the impugned judgment but they also did not care to make an application before the Court for the dispensation of the said copy. Their lethargic and indolent conduct clearly bordered on contumacy. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court was fully justified in holding that since the petitioners has failed to place on record the certified copy of the impugned judgment of the trial Court within the period of limitation and had also not applied for the dispensation of the said copy, their appeal had become hopelessly barred by time. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge finds support from Agricultural Development Bank v.
Sh. Muhammad Ayub (1984 CLC 1696), Province of the Punjab, through Board of Revenue, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Hussain and 4 others (1988 CLC 514 and Rana Allah Ditta v.
Muhammad Shafi and others (1990 MLD 2094).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that by admitting the appeal to regular hearing the learned lower appellate Court had impliedly dispensed with the copy of judgment. In support of his argument he relied on Swar Khan and 2 others v. Noor Alam and another 1985 CLC 1082 (S.CA.J&K). In the cited case appeal was filed without a copy of judgment and the official of the Court brought this omission to the notice of the Court but despite that the learned Court proceeded to admit the appeal to regular hearing. It was laid down that this act of the Court amounted to implied dispensation of the copy of the judgment. The ratio enunciated in the said case is wholly inapplicable in this case in so far as the omission was never brought to the notice of the learned lower appellate Court prior to the admission of the appeal to regular hearing, at least nothing to the contrary has been brought on record. This case, therefore, is of no help to the petitioners.
5. The impugned judgment and decree, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity. There is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed with costs.