P L D 1976 Lahore 802 (PLP)

The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, against the judgment and decree dated 14‑4‑1971, passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed mainly on the ground that the same was barred by time and no reasonable cause had been shown for, condoning the delay. Consequently the point , with regard to limi tation only has been argued before me by the learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The record shows that an application for the supply of certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 14-4‑1971 was made on 17‑4‑1971. As is evident from the certified copy of the receipt issued by the copying agency in favour of the appellant in lieu of the application submitted by him the next date for supplying the copy was given as 24‑4‑1971. The copy, however, could not be delivered on the said date. therefore, further time was given and he was directed to collect the copy on Ist of May 1971. Similarly the time for supplying the copy was extended there after to 10th May 1971, then to 17th of May 1971, then to 24th of May 1971, then to 31st of May 1971, and ultimately to 15th of June ,1971. The stamp affixed by the copying agency on the back of the judgment shows that the copy was prepared on 14‑6‑1971 but was delivered to the appellant on 30th of June 1971.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the copy of the receipt, as referred to above, supplied by the copying agency, is not correct and the same cannot be relied upon. Since the appeal was barred by time, therefore, it was for the appellant to show that the same was within time. If the contents of the receipt as mentioned above, were not correct according to him, then he should have summoned the original receipt maintained by the copying agency. It is admitted that no such step was taken by the appellant. The certified copy of the said receipt was placed on record by the respondent and was rightly relied upon by the Courts below in the circum stances of the case. There is yet another aspect of the case which needs mention. The copy was obtained by the appellant on 30‑6‑1971, and by that time the limitation had not yet expired. However, the appeal was filed on 22nd of July, 1971 before the learned Additional District Judge. If the limitation period is to be computed from 30th of June 1971, then the appeal may be found to be within time, but the facts of the case, however, ,show otherwise.

4. According to law if no date is mentioned by the copying agency for the delivery of a copy then it is its duty to inform the appelicant after its preparation. In that case the limitation may be computed from the date of delivery of the copy. However, if a specific date is given by the agency for delivery of a copy then it is obligatory for the applicant to visit the office of the agency for the purpose of taking delivery of the copy and in the case of its non‑preparation further time has to be extended and the applicant would be obliged to visit the agency on the date so given. According to High Court Rules and Orders as amended by a correction Pamphlet No. 39, dated the 3rd June 1959; the date communicated to the applicant for taking delivery of the copy or the date on which it is ready for delivery, whichever is later, shall be deemed, for the purpose of such calculation, to be the day on which it is given. It has been held in Gut Muhammad v. Allah Ditta (P L D 1960 Lah. 443) while relying upon Labhu Ram v. Bansi Dhar (A I R 1936 Lah. 120), Kishore Chand v. Bahadur (A I R 1936 Lah. 771) and Fouda Uraon v. Ganpat Ram (A 1 R 1920 Pat. 278) that the time "requisite" for obtaining copies which can be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation. Act, is the time which is taken between the date of application and the date when the copies are ready, but it can be further extended if further delay takes place by reason of the carelesness of the office in giving wrong information to the applicant as to the date on which the copies would be ready, or in giving no information at all. It has been further held that whatever period is necessary for the doing of a thing of that kind will be included in the time requisite for obtaining a copy. It means that if copy is not ready on the date given by the copying agency then the time from the date of application till the time of its preparation will be the time "requisite" for obtaining such copy and such time will be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act.

5. In the present case though the copy was prepared on 14th of June 1971 but the date given for its delivery was 15‑6‑1971 and in view of the High Court Rules and Orders, referred to above, the limitation will start from the later date.

6. It was held in Din Muhammad v. Abdul Aziz (P L D 1967 Lah. 553) that since no reasonable cause was shown for not obtaining the copies on the date when they were ready or even subsequent days till the date of actual delivery, therefore, such period could not be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The appellant in the present case has not shown any reasonable cause as to way be did not visit the copying agency on the date when the copy was ready for delivery or on the date which had been specified= to him for that purpose. If he had gone to the copying agency on 15‑6‑1971 then the copy applied for would have been delivered to him. It is interesting to notice that the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the learned lower appellate Court for condoning the delay was not accompanied by his affidavit explaining the reasons as to why be could not take delivery of the copy within time. In Sardar Amanullah Khan and others v_ Settiement & Rehabilitation Cnmmissioner and another (1974 S C M R 483) there was delay of 55 days in making application for copy of the order impugned before the Supreme Court. This order was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 3‑10‑1972, while the application was made on 1‑12‑1972, and the copy was ready for delivery on 21‑12‑1972, but the same was collected on 24‑3‑1973. The explanation as given by one of the petitioners hefore the Supreme Court was that she had given the "requisite" expenses for obtaining the certified copies on the following day of the announcement of the judgment to her counsel. Thereafter she had beer' visiting his ofcc occasionally but was told that the copy being not ready could not be obtained. It was on 21‑5‑1973, when the copy was. handed over to her. The version as put forward by the petitioner was not supported by any affidavit of her counsel in the High Court. It was. found that the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing the matter,. therefore no indulgence could be shown in favour of the petitioners. The proposition of law as laid down in P L D 1960 Lah. 443, as referred to above, has been approved by the Supreme Court in West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi (1973 S C M R 555). In that case decided by the Supreme Court there was a delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Supreme Court. The order was passed by the High Court on 7th September 1964, and application for the supply of certified copy of the same was made on the same day. It was made ready on 14th of October 1964, however, was supplied on 17th of October 1964, and the petition for special leave to appeal was filed on 16th of December 1964. No date or time had been notified by the copying agency as to when; the copy would be delivered, therefore, in view of the circumstances it was not obligatory for the appellant before the Supreme Court to visit the copying agency every day. It was rather the duty of the agency in such circum stances to inform the appellant about the preparation of the copy. The delay of 3 days as such was condoned by the Supreme Court. The view expressed above, gains support from Muhammad Afial Khan Lodhi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (P L D 1968 Lah. 1205). It has been held that when no intimation has been given by the copying agency about the date when the copy would be ready, it is the date of delivery of the copy of judgment and order, as the case may be, up to which, the time can be considered as the time "requisite" in obtaining the said copy.‑ This is however, not the position, .as discussed above, in the present case. Specific date was given by the copying agency to the appellant for collecting the copy but the appellant did not care to collect the same on the said date. The copy was obtained by him on 30‑6‑1971, but he was not careful enough to file the appeal within time, immediately after the delivery of the copy to him.

17. In the circumstances the period spent by him from 30‑6‑1971 to 22‑7‑1971, when the appeal was filed cannot be considered to be the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy. As such he cannot be shown any indulgence. Civil Revision having no force is hereby dismissed. However, fn the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. a_ Q, Petition dismissed.