1982 PLP 978 (CLC)

Civil Revision. No. 1705‑D of 1980, decided on 17th March, 1982. S. 100‑Appeal‑Late production of certified copy of order appealed against ‑Held, does not render appeal time‑barred if filed within time.‑‑[Appeal (civil)]. Mian Muhammad Abbas for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent. Date of hearing : 17th March, 1982. The facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking revision of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 28th September, 1980, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 19th October, 1978, whereby the petitioner's application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by the respondents against the petitioner for the possession of property in dispute on the 14th January, 1975, was dismissed, are these. Two days after rejection of his‑application for setting aside the ex parte decree secured by the respondents against him, that is, on the 21st October, 1978, the petitioner moved application with the copying agency for obtaining certified copy of the decree. Next day he filed appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting his application in the District 'Court, Lahore. He could not append certified copy of the order of the learned Civil Judge with the memorandum of appeal as it was not made available to him. As he alleges the copying agency failed to supply him with a certified copy .on the excuse that the file was not traceable. He moved another application and ultimately got copy on the 27th July, 1980. Strange to say the learned Additional District Judge held the appeal to time‑barred simply because the certified copy of the order appealed against had been filed late and on that score dismissed the appeal withou recording any finding on merits of the case. The order of the learned appellate Court below is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. It was no fault of the petitioner that the copy was given to him by the copyin agency so late. Even otherwise late production of the certified copy would not have rendered the appeal time‑barred which was filed well within .time. This petition is accordingly accepted, the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Lahore, who will either decide the petitioner's appeal himself or entrust it to another Additional District Judge. In any case the appeal will be disposed of within, two months. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore, on the 5th. April, 1982. The parties will bear their own costs of the petition. Appeal dismissed.