1979 PLP 68 (CLC)

S. 15 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLII, r. 2 Appellant filing appeal without certified copy of order of Rent Controller and even not filing same as directed by Court within 2 weeks-Appeal, held, improper-Appeal, held further, liable to be dismissed as barred by time if certified copy of Rent Controller's order filed after expiry of period of limitation unless case made out for condonation of delay. It is established law that if the appeal is filed' without a copy, it will not be a proper appeal and if such copy is filed after the expire of period of limitation, the appeal would be liable to be dismissed as barred by time unless a case is made out under section 5 of the Limitation Act. S. Waheedur Rehnean Gillani for Appellant. Sh. Anwarul Raq for Respondent Date of hearing : 3rd April 1979. This is an appeal against an order of Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Additional District Judge III Sahiwal dated 23rd April 1977 maintaining the order of ejectment of the appellant from the property in dispute passed by the learned Rent Controller. 2. This appeal was filed without a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller though it was required to be filed under rule 2 of Order XLII, C. P. C. White admitting this appeal on 8th June 1977 it was directed that the appellant shall file the certified copy within a period of two weeks. This order was in fact passed on C. M. 2233-C/77 in which the appellant had undertaken to produce the certified copy as soon as it was made available from the Copying Agency. C. M. 2232-C/77 praying for maintenance of status quo was allowed on the same date but that order was subject to notice. On 2nd April 1979 when that miscellaneous matter came up for consideration, I found that the order of the filing of the certified copy within the period of two weeks had not been complied with. On my query the learned counsel submitted that the copy had been filed within the period fixed by the Court and he remembered that he directed his clerk to file it in the Court. However there is no such. certified copy nor even an application for filing it, which means that the order dated 8th June 1977 has not been complied with. The absence of such a copy unless its presentation is dispensed with renders the appeal improper. It is established law that if the appeal is filed without such a copy, it will y not be a proper appeal and if such copy is filed after the expiry of period of limitation, the appeal would be liable to be dismissed as barred by time unless a case is made out under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case the second contingency does not arise since the appeal itself is improper. I, therefore, dismiss it as such leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.