1998 PLP 830 (CLC)

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This common judgment shall also dispose of Intra‑Court Appeals Nos.147 and 149 of 1993 as questions of facts and law are identical in all of them. This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 12‑5‑1991 passed by the learned Single Judge through which the Constitutional petition filed by the respondent was partly accepted and case remanded to the Director General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore to finalize the cases of allotment of the plots to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeals are barred by time.

4. The record shows that the appeals were originally filed on 8‑3‑1993 admittedly long after the prescribed period of limitation. The appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous No. l of 1993 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

5. The grounds urged in support of prayer for condonation of delay are as follows:‑‑‑ (a) That Government of Punjab was impleaded through its Secretary whereas Director‑General, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore, Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Faisalabad, Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Sargodha and District Housing Officer, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Jauharabad, District Khushab were cited as respondents. Because of lack of co‑ordination, attention of none of the above functionaries was attracted to the question of filing an appeal against the impugned judgment which occasioned delay in tiling the same. (b) The District Housing Officer, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Jahuarabad was responsible to look after the allotment in Mandi Town, Jauharabad and other allied matters and it was for him to move the Soliciter to the Government of the Punjab for the purpose of filing an appeal against the impugned judgment. Because of the negligence of the abovesaid officer to Soliciter could not be moved and the appeal became time‑barred. The Director‑General Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore had decided to initiate disciplinary action against the abovesaid officer. The fact that no move for filing the appeal had been made came to the notice of Director, Housing and Physical Planning Circle, Faisalabad who contacted the Advocate‑General, Punjab, Lahore for the purpose who deputed, M.M. Saeed Baig, Advocate to examine the matter who after going through the record advised on 2‑3‑1993 that an Intra‑Court Appeal should be filed.

6. None of these grounds according to well‑established law have been held to be sufficient grounds by fine superior Courts for condonation of delay as in A filing appeal negligence of officials of the concerned departments and delay taken in the office for preparing the case for filing appeal cannot, be allowed to be urged for filing appeal after prescribed period of limitation. This view is in accord with the law declared by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services) Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem (PLD 1995 SC 396).

7. Before the learned Single Judge in Constitution petition the Provincial Government was duly represented by Khalil Ahmad, A.A.‑G. Punjab. Impugned judgment was pronounced in his presence. An application for contempt of Court for non‑implementation of the direction given in the impugned judgment for the finalization of .the allotment of plots was filed in which Shahzad Jameel, Director General appeared on 7‑12‑1992 and gave an undertaking that the matter as regards allotment of plots would be finalized till 31‑12‑1992. Subsequently the appellants were issued allotment orders. There is no explanation for delay in filing the appeal from 7‑12‑1992 to 5‑3‑1993 as Shahzad Jameel the Director‑General came to know about the passing of the judgment and gave undertaking to implement the same on 7‑12‑1992.

8. Civil Miscellaneous No. l of 1993 moved by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has no merits which is accordingly rejected.

9. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Learned A.A.‑G. submits that the market price of the plot is more than Rs.14,000 per Marla whereas writ petitioner do not want to pay the price as determined by the Provincial Government, Housing and Physical Department.

10. We have noticed that in the impugned judgment no direction has been made as regards fixation of price or the price at which the plots were to be allotted/transferred to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that with the allotment order the writ petitioners were also intimated the price. Sajad Mahmood, Housing Officer Jauharabad says that in the allotment order it was expressly mentioned that the price indicated in it had been e provisionally fixed. The Provincial Government if under the rules in these circumstances can determine finally the price to be paid by the allottees there is nothing in the impugned judgment prohibiting them from doing so.

11. With the above observations, the appeals are hereby dismissed as barred by time. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./G‑73/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.