' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-6-1995 whereby Intra-Court Appeal filed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 11-7-1994 was dismissed.
2. Subject to the decision of question of limitation, leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 18-2-1996.
3. One of the respondents, namely, Qaisar Abbas has filed Criminal Original Petition No,12 of 1996 against the appellant Muhammad Sarwar and his counsel, namely, Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Advocate for initiating proceedings for the contempt of this Court. It is alleged in the said petition that the petition out of which this appeal has arisen (C.P.L.A. No,1147-L/1995) was filed in the Lahore Branch Registry of this Court on 3-9-1995, which was then taken back for preparation of paper books for which 14 days' time was sought. It is also alleged that within the aforesaid period, copy of the judgment of the High Court dated 11-7-1994 in Writ Petition No,15035 of 1993 and copy of the grounds of writ petition were removed from the original file from pages 44 to 67 at Serial Nos.6 and 7 of the index and were replaced by other copies of the said documents obtained on 4-10-1995 on Form No,1593 dated 12-7-1994, which had been filed by one Abdul Qadeer, a Clerk of Syed Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate, representing respondent No,7 in the aforesaid writ petition, who did not file any petition seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court dated 11-7-1994 nor against the order dated 4-6-1995 in I.C.A. No,440 of 1994. It is further alleged that the appellant has, thus, used the unauthorised copies of the impugned order and thereby has played fraud so as to show that the petition was in time, which in fact was barred by time.
4. It may be stated here that Writ Petition No,15035/1993 was decided by the Lahore High Court vide its judgment dated 11-7-1994 and the I.C.As. Filed to challenge the said order were also dismissed vide order dated 4-6-1995. Precisely, it was submitted that the limitation period to file a petition for leave to appeal had expired and with a view to bringing it within the limitation period the copies were replaced by using the copies obtained on Form No,1593 on which another respondent in the writ petition, who has not filed any petition for leave to appeal, had applied to obtain copies of the writ petition and the grounds thereof. It was further submitted that the copies applied for by the aforesaid Iftikhar Ahmed were ready in the Copying Branch on 7-8-1994, but the same were not received because he had no intention to file any petition for leave to appeal. It was also submitted that the appellants or their counsel had no locus standi to seek delivery of copies on Form No,1593 dated 12-2-1994 submitted by Iftikhar Ahmad, and thus, it was a device used to bring the appeal within time. It was also alleged that the appellants had already been furnished copies of the impugned order in Form No,37846 and 37847 dated 7-6-1995 and some more documents obtained on Form No,38725 were also obtained and annexed with the petition for leave to appeal. It was submitted that the appellants were fully equipped for filing petition for leave to appeal on 15-6- 1995, but the petition was filed in this Court on 3-9-1995 and thus it was barred by time. It was also alleged that the replacement of the copies of the writ petition and the grounds thereof was made to deceive this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length and we decided to examine the question of limitation. Writ Petition No,1535 of 1993 was disposed of vide order dated 11-7-1994 and the I.C.As. Taken against the said order were dismissed on 4-6-1995 on the ground that the same were not maintainable under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance. Admittedly, the petition in this Court challenging the order dated 11-7-1994 delivered in Writ Petition No,15035 of 1993 was filed in this Court on 3-9-1995 and then was taken back to supply the relevant paper books. With a view to ascertaining the correctness of the allegations levelled with regard to the replacement of copies of the order impugned, we have summoned Form No,1593 i.e. The application to obtain certified copies. Perusal of the said application form clearly reveals that it was not the appellants who had applied for the copies of the impugned order and the grounds of the writ petition to enable them to file this appeal, but it was the application on behalf of respondent No,7 in the writ petition for obtaining certified copies, which have been used by the appellant in this appeal. The crucial question arising foi determination is as to whether a party can use copies obtained by another person with a view to bringing his petition seeking leave to appeal within time. The answer to this question is definitely in the negative inasmuch as it is the right of the other person which accrues to him for filing a petition in time and the said right cannot be usurped by a person who has not obtained certified copies and is supposed to invoke jurisdiction of this Court in time to avail the remedy.We have also been informed that with regard to the allegations levelled by the respondents in the criminal original petition an inquiry is also being held by the High Court about the interpolations on various forms, i.e., the application for obtaining certified copies by the appellants and others. Even copy of the order impugned attached with this petition also shows interpolation. Besides that this petition was taken away by the appellants from the office for the supply of the paper books. We have examined the paper books. The copies of the impugned order and the grounds of writ petition do not bear page numbering although the other papers do bear such numbering. The office is directed to be vigilant in future and they should also see to it that a petition/appeal complete in all respects is filed in this Court. Furthermore, it will also be advantageous that in case a petition/appeal is to be returned or is taken back by the party to complete necessary formalities, copies of the impugned judgment/order and the grounds of petition/appeal should be initialled by an officer of the Court so that replacement cannot take place. When an incomplete petition/appeal is returned or taken back, it will be deemed that no petition/appeal had been filed or was pending. In this behalf, it will be advantageous to reproduce the observations made by Mr. Justice Cornelius, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Asif Ali Shah v. The Superintending Engineer, Quetta Circle, Quetta and another (PLD 1963 SC 263), which are as under:-- "It is clear that the condonation application suffers from more than one misconception. When the Attorney took back the petition for special leave, there was left no petition before the Court, whether with or without annexures. The case would have been different if time had been asked for, only to supply the Annexures, which were a necessary part of the petition. The claim that the appeal is within time' makes no sense, for there was no 'appeal' and the first time when the 'appeal' i.e., the petition was left with the Court, for being processed in accordance with law, was long after the expiry of limitation."
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is barred by time, therefore, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. As far as Criminal Original Petition No,12 of 1996 is concerned, we arc of the view that it is premature to pass any order in this behalf because, as already observed, an inquiry is pending in the High Court with regard to the interpolations and also the circumstances in which the copies were issued. The parties would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after the result of the inquiry. Hence this petition for the time being is dismissed.