1. ' The brief facts relating to this appeal are that Tanzeem Agency (Respondent No,1 /Plaintiff) filed a suit before 1st Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad (F.C. Suit No,121 of 1994) against the Province of Sindh (appellant No, I/defendant No,1), Mechanical Engineer, Central Sindh Mechanical Division, Jamshoro, District Dadu (Appellant No,2/Defendant No,2) Allah Banchayo Unnar, Mechanical Engineer Central (Defendant No,3.), Assistant - Engineer, Tractor Sub-Division No,1, Jamshoro (Appellant No,3/Defendant No,4), Muhammad Amin Kandhar described as Assistant Engineer, Tractor Sub-Division No,1 Jamshoro (Defendant No,5 in the original suit) Assistant Engineer, Workshop Sub-Division. Jamshoro, District Dadu, (Appellant No,4/Defendant No,6) and Qutubuddin Bhatti described as Assistant Engineer. Workshop Sub--Division, Jamshoro (Defendant No,7 in the suit) for recovery of Rs,19,20,959 for goods sold/supplied to the said persons. According to the impugned judgment notices of the suit were served by bailiff, registered post A.D. And by publication in daily newspaper, the 'brat, dated 12-10-1995. Service was held good on all the defendants and the matter was fixed for filing of written statement. On the failure of the defendants to file the written statement ex parte order was passed on 23-11-1995. The Advocate for defendants Nos.5 and 7 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C., on 4-4-1996 which was allowed.
2. Defendants sought several adjournments but failed to file the written statement and finally ex pane order was passed against defendants Nos.3, 5 and 7 on 12-2-1998. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed ex pane proof and finally the suit was decreed against the defendants jointly and severally as prayed with no order as to costs i,e, in the sum of Rs,19.20.959 together with interest/mark up at the rate of 57 paisas per thousand per day till recovery/realization of the amount decreed. The decree was signed by the Judge on 30-5-1998.
3. ' From the certified copies of documents filed by the appellants, it appears that the appellant filed the application for a certified copy of the judgment and decree on 30-5-1998 and the same was made ready and delivered on 6-6-1998. The period for filing an appeal against the judgment of Civil Court is ninety days- from the date of the decree excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the decree which was seven days in this case. The period of limitation for filing the appeal, therefore, expired on 4-9-1998. The appellant was filed on 9-10-1.998 and was, therefore, barred by 35 days. Along with the appeal memo. The appellant also filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reason stated in the affidavit of Saleem Ahmed. Mechanical Engineer, Central Sindh Mechanical Division, Jamshoro filed in support of the application reads as follows:- "(4) That I state that due to some unavoidable circumstances and difficulties of the Department this appeal could not be filed in proper time.
(5) That I. State that the impugned Judgment on the face of it is not sustainable and a very huge amount is involved, as such it is just fair and proper that appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
(6) That 1 state that delay in filing an appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate but was due to unavoidable circumstances as stated above."
4. ' On 1-2-1999 pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent who filed a counter-affidavit against the application for condonation of delay. It is well-established that if an appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation, the appellant must explain every day of delay. The appellant has not given any explanation whatsoever for delay in filing the appeal except a general statement that due to unavoidable circumstances and difficulties of the Department the appeal could not be filed in time and that the delay in filing the same was not wilful or deliberate. This is a general statement and not the proper explanation of delay as required by law. Every single day of delay must be explained which has not been done.
5. ' Mr. Mian Khan Malik, Additional Advocate-General submitted that the time during which the High Court was closed i,e, June to July 1998 must be excluded from the 90 days required for filing the appeal relied upon 1994 CLC 90 in support of his statement. The judgment cited by the learned Additional Advocate-General is not applicable to the circumstances of this case as in the cited case the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired while the District Court was closed for summer vacations and the appeal was apparently filed on the opening day. It was not so in the present case. The period of limitation for filing the present appeal expired on 4, September, 1998 when the High Court of Sindh was not closed for summer vacation and was in fact open and working normally, The Additional Advocate-General also argued that under the decree Province of Sindh is required to pay a huge amount to the respondent, it would, therefore, be proper that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits after giving it an opportunity to adduce evidence in its defence. The argument is not tenable because it has been repeatedly held by the Superior Courts that the Government Departments are not entitled to special indulgence as compared to ordinarily litigants. (1985 CLC 2234). In the case of Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hameed Dharji, 1970 SCM R 558 at 562 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:--- "This Court has also in several cases had occasion to point out that so far as limitation is concerned the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant, because of the fact that the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirements of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed and not to ask the Courts to give a different interpretation to its provisions."
6. In view of the above pronouncements of the High Court of Sindh and the Supreme Court of Pakistan the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.
7. ' Before parting, it would be appropriate to mention here that the F.C. Suit No,.121 of 1994 filed by the respondent was handled with gross negligence by the appellants/defendants. The service of summons was held good by the Civil Judge by publication on 12-10-1995 but neither any written statement was filed nor any action was taken to defend the proceedings as a result of which the Civil Judge was constrained to pass an ex parte decree on 12-5-1998 i,e, after about two years and seven days from the date of service of summons. The appellants prima facie did not act prudently and allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte by their negligence which can be termed as deliberate. Their gross negligence and dereliction of duty caused wrongful loss to the Province of Sindh and they are liable to make good the loss. The Province of Sindh is hereby directed to take action against the persons responsible for causing wrongful loss to the Province and recover the amount from them. Office is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the Governor, Chief Secretary, Secretary Irrigation Department and Secretary Law for Information and taking appropriate action both civil and departmental against the persons responsible for recovery of the loss suffered by the Province.
8. ' The Secretary Irrigation Department is hereby directed to submit a periodical report of the action taken against the persons responsible for causing loss to the Province. The report shall be submitted to this Court every six months starting 1-12-1999.