1992 PLP 1969 (MLD)

Respondent No.2 though served called absent. Respondent No.5 in person. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992. Petitioner being dissatisfied from the order passed by Qazi, Bori dated 20th October, 1991 and order/decree passed by Appellate Court/Majlis‑e- Shoora, Loralai, dated 21st March, 1992, whereby appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus this Revision Petition has been filed.

2. During hearing of the petition, it transpired that learned Majlis‑e- Shoora, failed to calculate the period of limitation correctly for ascertaining, whether appeal was within time or no t. It may be seen that on the order dated 20th October, 1991, copiest has given a certificate containing various dates, certifying the date when application for obtaining copies was filed and when copies were ready and delivered. ' Perusal whereof indicates, that application was moved on 22‑10‑1991, which were prepared in 28‑10‑1991 and delivered on 4‑11‑1991.

3. No doubt, it is obligatory upon the applicant to approach the copying branch, with great promptitude for receiving the copies after its preparation and if despite the fact that copies were ready but were not collected within reasonable time then in that case, person aggrieved from the order, owes an explanation to the Court to satisfy that under what circumstances he could not collect the copies at an earliest date.

4. It has also been noticed time and again that no regular system has been evolved by copying branch of various Courts. So much so no date is being given in writing for collecting the certified documents judgments/orders etc. In this behalf, it would be appreciated if presiding officer shall issue directives to all concerned that while receiving application for supply of certified copies of documents, a date be also given on the receipt issued for the copying fee, indicating that when the applicant is required to attend the office for collecting the copies and if on the fixed date certified documents are not collected, then time shall start running against him and an obligation will also be fixed on such person to state that why proceedings have not been filed within time. 4‑A. In the instant case, appeal was preferred a day earlier from the date of expiry of the period of limitation as time consumed for obtaining copies was seven days whereas appeal was preferred on 29th day after the date of order by Oazi. As such, due to miscalculation of period of limitation impugned order has been passed.

5. Mr. Azizullah Khan, learned counsel for respondents candidly conceded that appeal was not barred by time, however, he additionally argued that instead of remanding the case to Majlis‑e‑Shoora, impugned order dated 20‑10‑1991. be set aside and case be sent to learned Qazi for commencing proceedings from the stage here it was left, when suit was dismissed.

6. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, learned counsel for petitioner however, did not agree to the offer of respondents' counsel and stated that actually Qazi vide order dated 23rd September,, 1991, has directed the petitioner for impleading Haji Shah Mohammad, Abdul Salam and remaining Patidarans as defendants in the suit and against that order, revision was filed before Majlis‑e‑Shoora but as subsequently suit was dismissed and appeal also met with same fate therefore, the revision was also dismissed by Majlis‑e‑Shoora as having become infructuous. The examination of record reveals that no such order is available on the file. Even otherwise, Courts exercising jurisdiction under Order Rule 10, C.P.C. are competent to direct for impleading or deleting any person either as plaintiff or defendant in order to adjudicate the matter in a befitting manner. Thus apparently no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the Patidarans, whose names are mentioned in the order dated 23rd September, 1991 are impleaded as defendants.

7. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Advocate expressed apprehension that the Patidarans are numerous in number therefore, it would not be possible to implead them as party individually by their names. In this behalf, it may be observed that petitioner has filed the suit in representative capacity against respondents and if there would be difficult situation as has been expressed by learned counsel, in that case Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be pressed into service to comply with the order of the Court. In view of the above discussion and concession made by Mr. Azizullah Khan, counsel for respondents, impugned order dated 20‑10‑1.991 passed by Qazi, Bori and dated 21‑3‑1992, passed by Majlis‑e‑Shoora, Loralai are set D aside. Case is remanded to trial Court for proceeding on merits in accordance to law from the stage when the order dated 20th October, 1991. was passed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./410/Q Case remanded.