1994 PLP 34 (CLC)

Date of hearing 12th July, 1993. This application has been moved on behalf of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 under section 151, C.P.C. with the prayer that the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 having been instituted beyond the statutory period of thirty days. The relevant facts for the purposes of this point are that an order was passed by the Rent Controller on 19‑3‑1992 whereas the present appeal has been instituted on 27‑5‑1992. The endorsement at the head of the certified copy of the impugned order shows that application for certified copy was moved by the appellant on 30‑3‑1992, cost was paid and stamps supplied on 14‑5‑1992 while the copy was prepared and delivered on 17‑5‑1992. If the period intervening between 30‑3‑1992 and 17‑5‑1992 is excluded as required under section 12 of the Limitation Act, the appeal would be within time. However, in this case an enquiry was instituted through Second Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad as to why the Copying Branch had taken such a long time to get the costs deposited. On the report of the Second Senior Civil Judge and verification from the original record it appears that the application was, of course, moved by the appellant on 30‑3‑1992 but the Copying Branch estimated the cost on 14‑5‑1992 and received the same on the said date under receipt No.3258. In these circumstances any blame can hardly be laid at the end of the appellant. However, this practice of the Copying Branch is highly deprecated as it is contrary to the provisions of Sindh Civil Courts Rules. Not only this the very seal of the lower Court affixed on the head of the certified copies being issued by them is also not in accordance with the Sindh Civil Courts Rules. Provisions of Rule 323 of the Sindh Civil Courts Rule's laid down as under: "(1) As an order for a copy or translation has been made, the Record Keeper or under his supervision the Head Copyist, shall number and register the application in the order of its receipt in the Register of Application for copies and translations and shall enter on the application its serial number. He shall also at once, if possible, or during the same day but ordinarily not later than the following working day, ascertain the amount of copying, comparing and translation fees, when leviable, according to the scale prescribed in Chapter VII, Appendix D and enter them on the application and communicate them to the applicant." This Rule shows that it is incumbent upon the concerned person to estimate the cost on the very day the application is received and communicate the same to the applicant which is lacking in the present case. Again Rule 329 provides for various facts to be endorsed on the certified copy wherein serial No.2 provides for "the date of estimate of fees". This line is omitted from the seal which is being affixed on the certified copies by the Copying Branch. Again a. reference to Rule 331 shows that ' after the certified copies are prepared and are ready for delivery the same are to be notified on the Notice Board for the convenience of the parties so as they should come to collect the same within time. It is regretted that the above procedure and Rules are not followed by the office and even if there is any negligence on the part of the concerned parties, the same can conveniently be attributed to such flaws on the part of the office. Let the copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Hyderabad to ensure the compliance of the said Rules. In view of the above discussion this application stands disposed of as the present appeal is treated to be within time.

2. Let the main case be fixed for regular hearing on 19‑7‑1993. H.B.T./M‑1876/K Order accordingly.