1987 PLP 2212 (CLC)

ABDUL SULTAN‑‑Respondent First Appeal No. 50 of 1986, decided on 1st December, 1986 ‑‑‑Ss. 6‑A & 7‑‑Suit for recovery of loan s‑‑Condonation of delay‑ Limitation‑ ‑Every day's delay has to be explained by person seeking exemption from time limit‑‑Suit for recovery of loan filed by Bank after delay of more than ten months without explaining reasons for such delay in filing such suit, held, was rightly dismissed in circumstances. Saleem Iqbal for Appellant. MUHAMMAD ZAHOOURUL HAQ, J.‑‑The appellant feels aggrieved against an order dated 4th March, 1986, passed by the Presiding Officer Special Court of Banking for Sind. The appellant had filed a Suit for recovery of Rs,4,228.52 against respondent who was their employee and had failed to discharge a loan which he had taken for motor‑cycle. The last instalment was paid by the respondent on 25th August, 1981 in respect of loan and therefore the Suit should have been filed by respondent on 24the August, 1984. However, the Suit was filed on 3rd July, 1985, which means a delay of more than ten months. Alongwith the Suit an application under Section 6‑A of the Ordinance was also filed for condonation of delay, on the ground that the documents were not traceable from December, 1983 to June, 1985. It was also stated that the defendant was not available, and the whole time was lost from December, 1983 in the search of defendant and documents. The learned Special Court of Banking did not grant this application, on the ground, that the Suit was hopelessly time barred, and that the contention that documents had been misplaced had no locus standi. The learned Banking Court did not regard the explanation as satisfactory and dismissed the application as well as the suit. Mr. Saleem Iqbal learned counsel for the appellant, has stated, that the discretion has not been exercised in judicious manner, we do not agree with this submission. The appellant himself had failed to disclose as to what efforts have been made by the appellant for the search of the documents and it had further to disclose as to who was in custody of the documents in question and when they were misplaced. But no particulars in this respect were disclosed by the appellant and hence the application for condonation of delay lacked the necessary particulars and, therefore, it was rightly dismissed. Moreover, we find, that the application itself states that the documents were not traceable from December, 1983 to June, 1985. Even in this the exact date of June, 1985 when the documents were finally alleged to be traced, has not been given. The law in respect of limitation is that the every day's delay has to be explained by the person who seeks exemption from time limit. No serious effort was made by the appellant to explain each day's delay and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rightly dismissed. We do not find any ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion made in this respect by the Lower Court and, therefore, this appeal Is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./H‑28/K Appeal dismissed.