' An objection was taken by the office that certified copy/copies of the evidence and other Annexures, Exhibits etc. Of the Civil Judge/Trial Court be filed. The date of objection is dated 21-3- 1996. Office again reported on 7-3-1997 that objection has not been removed. The civil revision was again filed on 4-11-1996 after the lapse of 228 days and objection was made for filing of an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he had filed 11 civil revisions against one and the same order and in the civil revision titled as Allah Bachaya etc. v. Ahmad Bakhsh and others all the documents were placed on record and the remaining civil miscellaneous application under section 151, C.P.C. Was given for dispensation of the filing of copies of oral evidence and that the full record of evidence that has been produced in it be considered as part and parcel of the remaining 10 civil revisions with further request that original file of the Trial Court be requisitioned for convenience of the parties and that, therefore, no order could be passed regarding the application for dispensation of copies, and therefore, admission of the civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that under section 115, C.P.C. It was mandatory for the petitioners to annex all the certified copies of the documents. If he failed to do so the revision is not maintainable and the Court cannot call for the record. It is further submitted that the list of the objections was notified on the main Notice Board as there was a general objection by the Bar that they do not come to know of the objection, and therefore, that practice has been followed. It is further submitted that it is not a delay of a week or two weeks or a month or few months but is a delay of 228 days and that a duty was cast on the petitioners to remain vigilant and remove objections as earlier as possible. He further submitted that when the party was allowed to remove the objections, the condonation was not possible after a lapse of 228 days and that despite a direction that an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay may be filed, regarding the question of condoning the delay, the same has not been filed.
4. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
5. Section 115, C.P.C. Is very clear on the point. It reads as under:- "Section 115. Revision.---(1) Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such ,application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court."
' Similarly, Rule 4, Chapter I of High Court Rules and Orders Vol. V clearly states:--
(4) "Letters Patent Appeals.--- Time within which to be filed and documents to accompany.
' Every appeal to the High Court under clause 10 of the Letter Patent from a judgment of a Judge sitting singly on the appellate side of the High Court, shall be presented within 30 days from the date of judgment appealed from, unless the admitting Bench, in its discretion for good cause shows; grant further time.
' The period of limitation for the presentation of an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge exercising original jurisdiction is 20 days from the date of the judgment (Article 151 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,. 1908).
' In an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the memorandum of appeal need not be accompanied by a copy of the decree, order or judgment appealed from, but where a certificate is required under clause 10, the memorandum of appeal must contain a declaration to the effect that the Judge who passed the judgment has certified that the case is a fit one for appeal. The time spent in obtaining the certificate (including the date of application and the date of the order granting the certificate) shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation.
' The periods of limitation prescribed in this Rule, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908."
' Further in the case of Federation of Pakistan through General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Empress Road, Lahore v. Muhammad Sadiq 1987 CLC 1429 where it was held:- "(12) I agree with learned counsel for the respondent that the civil revision is not properly constituted because it is not accompanied by copies of the exhibited documents. Even if the permission to file the said copies had been granted, the civil revision would have been properly constituted on 1st March, 1987 when the said copies were produced before me.
(14) What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner was not only guilty of gross negligence but also of contumacy. It was as far back as in 1969 that the petitioner (sic) lost his job due to his removal from the service. The suit brought by him to challenge the order of his removal from service met with success. But he has not so far been able to avail of the fruits of the by the learned trial Court because of the unsuccessful appeal against the said decree and the filing of the present civil revision. Thus, he is in a state of suspense for the last 18 are viewed in this background, negligent and contumacious conduct of the petitioner seems to be all the more actionable.
(15) In result, I hold that there is no properly constituted revision before me. Even if there is one, it suffers from the defect of laches and `deserves to be dismissed on that ground. This civil revision, accordingly fails. It is dismissed in limine without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case."
' And that where office takes an abjection the Honourable Division Bench of the Lahore High Court still further in the case 31. Naheed Ahmad v. Asif Riaz and 3 others PLD 1996 Lah. 702 where it was held:-- "10. The overall impression which can be gathered from the reading of the evidence noted above would show that the plaintiff/appellant had himself failed to establish that any custom of trade was in vogue in the market whereby the orders for the supply of ornaments were placed orally or that the same were supplied without any writing or contract in that behalf. Even otherwise the plaintiff/appellant has not been able to establish that as to what was the exact description of the ornaments allegedly supplied by him nor the value thereof was sufficiently established. It is in the evidence that certain ornaments allegedly supplied by the plaintiff/appellant to the respondents were studded with precious stones yet the separate value of gold and stones was not given in the evidence. The note book produced by the plaintiff/appellant could also not be relied because the same is not shown to have been regularly maintained. In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on correct and true reading of the evidence on the record, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
(11) For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed as barred by Limitation as well as on facts. The plaintiff/appellant shall also pay the costs thereof."
' And in the case of Muhammad Ahmad v. Muhammad Ali and another PLD 1996 Lah. 158 where it was held:-- "5 ...The appeal as already noted, was filed in this Court on 22-11-1976. The same was returned by the office with certain objection and the appellant was allowed seven days time to remove the objection and re-file the appeal, which was ultimately filed on 6-12-1976. It is clear from the record and the diary for 1976 that 21-11-1976 was Sunday and in those days it was weekly holiday. , The appeal was, therefore, within time when filed on 22-11-1976. The appeal was filed as ordinary case and the cause list of motion cases was published weekly. The appellant accordingly came to know on 29-11-1976 that the office had raised some objections and collected the appeal. The same could be filed up to 5th of December, 1976. It is clear from the diary that the Court was closed for Eid Holidays from 2-12-1976 to 4-12-1976 while the 5th December, 1976 was Sunday, the weekly holiday.
Therefore, the memorandum of appeal re-filed on 6-12-1976 was within time.
6. It is true that the time required for removal of the objection is to be adhered to and failure to re- file the appeal, revision, application, as directed by the office would become time-barred because the time required for removal of the objection is not to be excluded while computing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act but the same is granted under Rule 4, Chapter I, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V, read with Rule 3, Order XLI, C.P.C. Which reads as under:-- "3. Rejection of amendment of memorandum.--- (1) Where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, it may be rejected, or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be amended then and there.
(2) Where the Court rejects any memorandum, it shall record the reason for such rejection.
(3) Where a memorandum of appeal is amended, the Judge, or such officer as he appoints in this behalf, shall sign or initial the amendment."
' While Rule 4, Chapter I, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V reads asunder:-- "4. "4. The Deputy Registrar may return for amendment within a time to be fixed by him any memorandum, of appeal for the reason specified in Order XLI, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
It is, therefore, clear that if the appellant fails to refile the memorandum of appeal within the time allowed by the office the extra time taken for removal of the objection would not be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The learned counsel in this behalf referred to the judgment in the case reported as Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Ashraf 1991 CLC 269 and Ghulam Hussain v. Bahadur PLD 1954 Lah.
361.
6. For the above reasons the petitioner has failed to convince this Conn for condonation of delay and all the 11 civil revisions are dismissed as time-barred and being in violation section 115, C.P.C.
7. This order will also dispose of the instant objection cases i,e, Diary No,903/96, 904/96, 905/96, 907/96, 908/96, 909/96, 910/96, 911/96,.912/96 and 920/96 as these arise out of the one and same order as common question of objection and law are involved therein. Objection sustained.