' Petitioner brought an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for an award being made a rule of Court. By its order dated 29-7-1991 trial Court rejected the application.
2. Petitioner instituted an appeal on 12-9-1991 which came up before Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhary, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who proceeded to dismiss it on 24-9-1991 as being barred by time. But, strangely enough, he neither made the required calculation of days nor did he even indicate the period whereby the appeal was supposed by him to be barred.
3. Record of the appellate Court was sent for at the pre-admission stage hereof and perusal thereof revealed that certified copy of the trial Court's order dated 29-7-1991 was applied for on the following day (30-7-1991) and it was prepared, completed and delivered on 12-8-1991, therefore, the appeal filed on 12-9-1991 could not anywise be held time-barred because a public holiday of death anniversary of Quaid-i-Azam fell on 11-9-1991 whereby the last day of limitation of 30 days for the filing of appeal, prescribed by Article 152 of the Limitation Act got shifted to 12-9-1991 by force of the provisions of sections 12 and 4 of the Limitation Act and this appeal could be filed in the District Court upto 12-9-1991. So he did on that day.
3-A. Observation made by the Additional District Judge that appellant could file the appeal even before 10-9-1991 may, perhaps be correct on a factual plane, but that could not be any legal consideration for throwing out the appeal because every litigant is entitled to avail to himself the entire period of limitation admissible under the law and may legitimately wait upto the last day thereof. The premises which prevailed with the Additional District Judge and the reasoning employed by him, for dismissal of the appeal as barred by time, is wholly wrong and altogether unsustainable. His order is liable to be accordingly vacated with the consequence that the petitioner's appeal below be held to have not been given treatment in accordance with law, therefore, it still awaits to be so decided. It is accordingly held.
4. In result, this revision petition is accepted and appellate Court's order dated 24-9-1991 is set aside and the relevant appeal in the District Court is required to be re-admitted to its original number for being heard afresh, to be decided in accordance with law after summoning the parties, by learned District Judge, Gujranwala who will be free to assign the appeal to any Additional District Judge, other than the one who dealt with it earlier. No order as to costs.