' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 11-5-2001, passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court No,IV, Lahore, whereby a suit filed by Al-Barka Islamic Investment Bank, respondent No,1 herein, has been decreed to the extent of Rs,26,95,098, by dismissing the appellant's application filed under section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, for leave to appear and defend the suit, by observing: "...The defendants have failed to demonstrate triable issues and have failed to raise serious and bona fide question requiring adjudication after a full dressed trial."
2. Alongwith the appeal an application (C.M.No,2-C of 2002) under section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been moved.
3. Before us, on the strength of section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the case reported as Federation of Pakistan through the General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore v. Mrs. Riaz Latif (PLD 1990 SC 90) it has been argued that the appellant is entitled to deduct the period of limitation consumed in obtaining the requisite copy of the impugned judgment and decree. Further contends, the date on which copy was received by the appellant from the Banking Court would be excluded from the limitation available to the appellant for filing the instant appeal.
4. Firstly, it is to be seen whether the case of Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 90) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The answer is in the negative, because in that case application was made by the applicant under the relevant Copying Agency Manual, Chapter 13-A, rules 9, 10, 12 and Statement No,111, Form C.D.1, which cover the cost of the copy and the application was made by the applicant on the prescribed form and it was also mentioned that the copy be supplied to him by V.P.P. In compliance with rules 13-A-12 and 13-A-13. Since copy was not supplied by V.P.P., which was the legal right of the party, in violation of the above-stated rules, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the case was remanded for deciding the appeal on merits.
5. Subsection (5) of section 12 was added in the Limitation Act, 1908, by virtue of Limitation Amendment Act (VIII of 1991). Before insertion of subsection (5) time taken between date of application and date when copies were ready could be extended if such further delay was due to carelessness of office in informing the applicant about the date on which copies were ready for delivery as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi (PLD 1973 SC 222).
6. By virtue of subsection (5) of section 12 of the Limitation Act read with High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, Chapter XIV-D, para.2(ii)(d) time intervening between the day on which application for copy is made and the day actually intimated to the applicant to be the day on which copy will be ready for delivery, the period up to the said date can be excluded. However, it will have to be shown to the satisfaction of the Court the various dates that were given on the slip to the applicant to collect the copy and what steps the applicant took to collect the copy.
7. The abovementioned section 12 of the Limitation Act and High Court Rules and Orders came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Cantonment Board, Kharian Cantt. v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1991 SC 400) and it has been ruled: "Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), S. 12 read with High Court Rules and Orders, Vol.I, Chapter XIV-D, para.2(ii)(d)-Appeal-Delay in filing of-Whether time between completion of copy and its delivery, is 'time requisite'-Question of-Where rules of Court or copying branch provide that a date shall be communicated to applicant when certified copy will be ready, 'time requisite' for obtaining certified copy would be time which is taken between date of application and last date communicated by official of Copying Branch for taking delivery-Rule that sufficient ground, should be shown for securing condonation, stands established and even where 'time requisite' is sought to be stretched, sufficient grounds have to be shown to justify each day's delay in order to such condonation of delay-In this case, appellant did not establish before lower Appellate Court that he was given wrong information about date on which copy would be ready---Held: Appellant could not make out any case for exclusion of time spent between completion and delivery of copy-Held further: Appellant's appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred by Additional District Judge."
8. In the instant case, to decide the question of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, some dates are relevant. Learned Judge, Banking Court passed the judgment and decree on 11-5-2001. An B application for supply of certified copy of the judgment and decree was moved on 24-5-2001. Date of preparation of the certified copy is 15-6-2001 and the copies were delivered to the appellant on 26-10-2001, and the appeal was filed on 5-11-2001.
8. This is not the case of the appellant for condonation of delay that the appellant was not intimated by the office about the date on which the copy was to be supplied by the Copying Agency/office. It has not been alleged that delay has been occasioned due to the carelessness of the office in informing the applicant/appellant about the date on which copy was ready for delivery. In this view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled for exclusion of the time from 16-6- 2001 when the copy was prepared and till the delivery date, i,e, 26-10-2001 when the appellant received the copy. The appellant has filed appeal after more than 155 days, whereas 30 days' period is prescribed for filing the appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Suffice to say that in view of D section 29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 of the said Act is not applicable in this case.
Resultantly, the application (C.M. No,2-C of 2002) E for condonation of delay as well as the appeal fails, and the same are dismissed.