1986 PLP 527 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 151‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Appeal of petitioner dismissed by appellate Court as barred by time by over a month‑‑Petitioner taking plea that his time was spent in consulting some Advocate before selecting forum for appeal‑‑Petitioner filing no affidavit from said Advocate in support of his plea‑‑Petitioner did not act diligently and failing to explain each day's delay‑‑Explanation given by appellant not satisfactory‑‑Order of appellate Court dismissing petitioner's application for condonation of delay as well as his appeal, held, unexceptionable in circumstances. Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi for Petitioner. This civil revision has arisen out of an appeal filed by the petitioner, Rizwan Hussain, against the respondent, Rehm Din. The appeal was directed against judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Chiniot, District Jhang, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession of certain land through pre‑emption. Admittedly, the appeal was time‑barred when it was presented. The petitioner made an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay but the same was rejected by the District Judge, Jhang, who was seized of the appeal. He also dismissed the appeal for being time‑barred. Feeling aggrieved by his order, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

2. In the impugned order, it was pointed out by the learned District Judge that there was delay of one month in filing the appeal. Explanation given by the petitioner for this delay was that after obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, he contacted Mr. Muhammad Ali Zaidi, a Senior Advocate of Lahore, who advised him to file appeal before this Court. Subsequently, however, the petitioner consulted Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din another Senior Advocate of Lahore, who advised him to take his appeal to the District Judge. According to the petitioner, it was due to his consultations with the said learned Advocate of Lahore that he became late in filing appeal before the learned District Judge. In his order under challenge it was noted by the learned District Judge then the affidavit of the said Advocate (Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi) had not been attached to the application for condonation of delay. It was also mentioned by the learned District Judge that no appeal was filed by the petitioner before this Court by acting on the advice of Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi nor the same was returned to him by this Court for having been preferred before a wrong forum.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before adverting to the question of limitation, the learned District Judge should have decided the question of jurisdiction and since this was not done by him, his order was without jurisdiction. According to him, learned District Judge could dismiss the appeal as time‑barred only after holding that he had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

4. Petitioner had himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge and even now it is not his case that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Jurisdiction of the learned District Judge was also not objected to by the respondent. In the circumstances, the learned District Judge was not called upon to decide the question of jurisdiction. I am, therefore, unable to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge could not dismiss the appeal as time‑barred without first deciding the question of jurisdiction.

5. Before proceeding further I would like to state that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Jurisdictional value of the suit as fixed by the petitioner (plaintiff) himself was Rs.200. This value was not altered by the learned Civil Judge while deciding the suit. Thus, jurisdictional value for the purpose of appeal was also Rs.200 and the appeal lay before the learned District Judge and not before this Court regardless of the fact that the value of the property involved was said to be more than Rs.50,

000. The view taken by me is supported by Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Bilqees Begum P L D 1985 SC 393 and Sadar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh and another P L D 1976 Lah.

1. The case of Messrs Pakistan Electrical and Mechanical Construction Ltd., Lahore v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others 1979 C L C 845 is also in point.

6. There is no affidavit of Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi or Ch. Hamid ud‑Din in support of the petitioner's plea that he had consulted them before taking appeal to the learned District Judge. Even if he had to consult them he should have done so urgently. He had about 'one month's time to do this exercise. If he did not act diligently he is himself to blame for the result of his indolence. Admittedly, the petitioner had not acted on the advice of Syed Muhammad All Zaidi inasmuch as he did not file any appeal before this Court. Petitioner was late by one month in taking appeal to the learned District Judge. In order to get over the difficulty of limitation he was required to explain each day's delay but the explanation given by him is not satisfactory. No valid exception can, therefore, be taken to the order of the learned District Judge by which he had declined to overlook fairly long delay on the part of the petitioner.

7. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.