2014 PLP 417 (CLC)

The present Intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 23-5-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby a Writ Petition No.2721 of 2012 filed by the respondent against the appellants was accepted.

2. The respondent-Beyzad Haider Khan was a contract employee in the office of the Assistant Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department Attock, who has sought his regularization of his services in accordance with the notification dated 14-10-2009 issued by the Government of the Punjab. The writ petition was accepted and the respondents/appellants were directed to regularize the service of the respondent in compliance of notification dated 14-10-2009 issued by the Government of the Punjab, S&GAD (Regulation Wing).

3. Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset has contended that Intra-court appeal is barred by limitation. The impugned judgment was passed on 23-5-2013. The appeal had been preferred on 10-6-2013 but the office has raised certain objections. A notice thereof was given to the appellants but the objections were not removed within time and ultimately the appeal was filed after removal of the objections on 28-9-2013 which is hopelessly time-barred. The respondent has relied on Bank of Punjab v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLD 2010 Lahore 666), Collector Land Acquisition v. Fazal ur Rehman (2009 SCMR 767) and Mst. Bhakhan v. Mst. Ghulam Janat (2005 SCMR 1662).

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer representing the appellants has contended that the appeal was filed on 10-6-2013 within limitation and the appellants got no knowledge about the objection if any raised by the office. The appellants came to know about the objections on 27-9-2013 and the file of the appeal taken and was re-submitted on 29-9-2013 after removal of the objections. Hence, the appeal is within time. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Muhammad (2001 SCMR 19), Board of Governors v. Farah Zahra (PLD 2005 SC 153) and Government of Balochistan v. Muhammad Ali (2007 SCMR 1574).

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone though the available record.

6. No doubt the appellants have preferred appeal against the order/judgment dated 23-5-2013 which was received in the office on 10-6-2013 and the appeal was within time but the office has raised an objection which was duly conveyed to the appellants through an objection list issued on 11-6-2013 and the appellants were directed to remove the objection within three days. The appellants after receipt of notice did not contact the office and obtained the file for the removal of objections on 27-9-2013 and re-filed the appeal on 28-9-2013. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants had got no knowledge of any objection raised by the office. The cause list dated 11-6-2013 pertaining to the objection list has negated the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. We have gone through the case-law produced by the learned counsel for the appellants, which is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. After the receipt of memorandum of appeal on 10-6-2013, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 11-6-2013 directed the appellants to remove the objection within three days and the appellants were directed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee and to annex certain documents within specified time and its refiling within three days after removal of objection. The filing of the appeal was invalid and the appeal could not be considered to have been preferred for the purposes of limitation. It is a settled law now that time specified by the office for the removal of objection will not stop the limitation from the running. The period from the date of raising objection by the Deputy Registrar till refiling of the case could not be excluded under the Limitation Act and the proper course for the appellants was to file an application for the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act while re-filing the appeal after removal of objections. The notice regarding objections raised by the office was displayed on the Notice Board and the appellants had the knowledge of the same.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants came to know about the objection on 27-9-2013 is not substantiated from the record. The court-fee which was submitted with the appeal after the removal of objection has revealed that the stamp paper was purchased on 8-7-2013 through Government Pleader which has clearly established that the appellants had the knowledge of the objections prior to 27-9-2013 and appeal is not accompanied by any application for the condonation of delay. Therefore, this appeal is hopelessly time-bared. Resultantly, this appeal having no merits is hereby dismissed. MH/P-22/L Appeal dismissed.