1987 PLP 479 (MLD)

S.3--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Delay of each and every day that had passed after prescribed period of limitation, held, had to be explained. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

S.3--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Negligence of counsel- Mistake arising from negligence of counsel, held, was not sufficient for condonation of delay.--[Counsel and client]. Iftikhar Muhammad for Petitioners. Munawar Ahmad Mirza for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th November, 1983. The petitioners are aggrieved of the judgment and decree, dated 8-11-1976 passed by Qazi Bela and the order, dated 19-8-1980 passed by Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat at Mastung. 2. The short facts of this matter are that on or about 13-12-1974 the petitioners filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Bela which suit was referred to Qazi Bela for decision according to Shariat. The Qazi Bela vide his judgment, dated 8-11-1976 dismissed the suit. Against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat at Mastung. This appeal was returned by the Majlis-e-Shoora on 20-12-1976 as it was not accompanied by the decree sheet. The appeal was however, filed on 17-5-1977 which has been dismissed on 19-8-1980 and one of the grounds was that the appeal was barred by time. Besides it was pointed out by the learned Members of the Majlis-e-Shoora that the suit itself was vague in that the boundaries of the land in suit were not properly described as such it was not maintainable according to law and shariat and was liable to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that originally the appeal was filed in time but the same was returned on 20-12-1976. Since the appeal was filed through an Advocate from Karachi the fact of the return of the appeal was not known to the petitioners and this came to knowledge of the petitioners when an application for the grant of stay was moved, whereupon the petitioners were informed once again that there was no appeal pending before the Majlis-e-Shoora and the one previously filed was returned. In the subsequent appeal filed on 17-5-1977 no explanation was offered nor it was explained as to why the appeal could not be filed after the receipt of the originally filed appeal. It was also not explained as to why in the previously filed appeal the decree sheet was not annexed. Admittedly the decree sheet was prepared but was not filed which must have been filed. This being the case no exception can be taken to the order of the Majlis-e-Shoora, that the appeal was barred by time. It is hardly necessary to point out that it was the duty of the petitioners to explain each and every day that had passed after the prescribed period of limitation and the Court of appeal had jurisdiction to determine whether the appeal in the circumstances of the case was competent and entertainable. This Court has pointed out in Regular Second Appeal No.6 of 1982 (Samad v. Muhammad Jamal and others) that a mistake arising from negligence of the counsel is not sufficient for the condonation of delay. In the instant case there is no application for condonation of delay even. In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora. The petition is, therefore, dismissed on this short ground. The parties shall bear their own costs. 3. At the close of the arguments on 19th November, 1983 I had passed the short order dismissing the petition and these are the reasons for the same. M.Y.H./269/Q Petition dismissed.