1991 PLP 354 (SCMR)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 22‑3‑1989.

2. The facts need not be given. The only question for consideration of this Court was whether the appellate Court was right in holding the appeal before it as barred by time by one day. This point has been examined by the High Court in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appeal was within time and in holding so observed: "I have examined the relevant provisions of copying agency manual which provide that an application must contain a court‑fee stamp of requisite value and dealing officer in the copying agency was to undertake scrutiny of such application to ascertain whether there was any objection. It is clear from the relevant register as noticed above that application of the petitioners was entered against serial number 22 on 2‑1‑1984. Since the application was not bearing court‑fee stamp of requisite amount and order of the Presiding Officer of the Court allowing the issuance of the copy had also not been obtained, therefore, the copying agency according to the said manual should have returned the application. According to para. 3.8(iv) of the said manual, it is primarily the duty of the copying agency to obtain sanction of the higher authority if it was a prerequisite for the supply of copy. It may be a practice that instead of obtaining the sanction of the higher authority itself, the copying agency had been. requiring the appellant to get an order from such authority for supply of copy which will not change the legal position as stated above. Considering that the application was made on 2‑1‑1984 the same cannot be held to have been made on 3‑1‑1984 merely because court‑fee stamp was affixed on 3‑1‑1984 or that sand ion of the Presiding Officer of the Court was also obtained on 3‑1‑1984. It appears that the copying agency entertained the application on 2‑1‑1994 without court‑fee stamp and the order of the Presiding Officer and in order to cover this fault, an attempt was made by Murrawat Hussain to make out a case that he could not record the date of 3‑1‑1984 above entry, number

22. An application for supply of copy which may be defective on any account if entertained and entered in the register on a particular date that would be the date on which the said application shall be deemed to have been made for computing the period of limitation and that date shall be included in the time spent for obtaining copy within the meaning of section 12 of the Limitation Act. After having concluded that the application for supply of copy was made on 2‑1‑1984 the appeal of the petitioners before the learned lower appellate Court was within time. The findings of the learned lower appellate Court are, therefore, not sustainable."

3. After hearing the learned counsel we find that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable in the circumstances of the case. He came to the above conclusion after examining the record of the copying agency and the relevant provisions of the manual. The learned counsel for the petitioners pas not been able to point out any misreading of evidence on the part of the High Court in coming to the above conclusion.

4. Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./T‑49/S Petition dismissed.