2007 PLP 695 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The reference of the respondents challenging the award about the compensation of their superstructure was accepted by the learned Civil Judge, vide judgment, dated 19-4-2004 and the increase in the compensation was made; the appellants applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 20-4-2004, which was prepared on 29-4-2004 and was received by the appellants on 29-7-2004, whereas, the present appeal was filed on 3-9-2004, which was barred by 38 days; along with the appeal, an application for the condonation of delay, has been moved ;it is the case of the applicant/appellants that they were given successive dates for the delivery of the copy of and the last was 29-7-2004, and therefore, the copy was supplied on the said date, thus excluding the time spent for the copy, the appeal is within the limitation. Along with the application, an affidavit of the counsel as also his clerk have been filed. Instead of going into the affidavits, we had summoned the original record of the Copying Agency, which has been produced by Muhammad Yousaf, Superintendent, District Courts, Kasur; according to the forms submitted by the applicant/appellants, it is clear from the endorsement on the form and also from the requisite register that the date for the delivery of the copy given to the applicants/appellants was 29-4-2006; it was prepared on that date. But if the appellants or their counsel, have not collected the copy, they cannot seek the condonation of delay on that account; the fact that copy was prepared on 29-4-2004 is also supported by the fact that the respondents also applied for the copy on 20-4-2004, which was prepared on 29-4-2004 and was received by the respondents on 30-4-2004.

2. The argument that the copy of the receipt was given to the appellant on which the dates of delivery were subsequently changed, has not been produced, suffice it to say that this record is not required to be maintained/preserved under the law; the certified copy of the same receipt, which is attached to this appeal, cannot be considered as correct because the note on the receipt mentions the date as 20-4-2005, whereas, the judgment in the present case is dated 19-4-2004. Thus the receipt also does not help the case of the appellants. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments, reported as West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi (PLD 1973 SC 222), is not applicable, because from the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any negligence or carelessness on part of the Copying Agency or that any wrong information was given to the applicants/appellants.

3. In the light of above, no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay, has been made by the applicants/appellants, resultantly the application is dismissed, with the result that this appeal also stands dismissed. F.B./N-1/L Appeal dismissed.