1991CLC479 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Appeal filed before Appellate Court below was dismissed being barred by time and appellant/petitioner could not give good reasons for condonation of delay in filing appeal, valuable right having been accrued to successful plaintiff on expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal‑‑‑No illegality or irregularity was found in the order of Court below refusing condonation of delay and also in judgment and decree dismissing appeal as barred by time‑‑‑Revision petition was dismissed. Ch. Ghulam Hassan for Petitioner The facts leading to this revision briefly are that on 8‑1‑1983 Rana Aslam Ice Factory through Sh. Khalid Siddiq filed a suit for declaration to the effect that bill of Rs.20,085.48 issued by the Revenue Officer Electricity WAPDA Nankana Sahib, defendant No.3 was illegal, without consideration, arbitrary and ineffective upon his rights. As a mandatory injunction he prayed for the restoration of electricity connection. The suit was resisted. Four issues were framed. The parties adduced evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 9‑4‑1987. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal on 21‑5‑1987. Since the appeal was barred by time, so application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay was made. The learned Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on 26‑2‑1990, hence this revision. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Khalid Mehmood was appointed as Court Clerk and he used to pursue the Court cases and assist Counsel of the WAPDA. Certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was with him and he had to approach the counsel for filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court but he suddenly fell ill and could not contact the counsel. Resultantly, the appeal could not be filed within time. The learned counsel argued that the reason given by the Appellate Court that Khalid Mehmood was just a clerk of WAPDA and had nothing to do with the filing of the appeal is factually wrong, inasmuch as although WAPDA Officials were authorised persons and competent to file the appeal yet Khalid Mehmood was assigned duty of filing the appeal contacting the counsel for the purpose of handing over to him the requisite certified copy of the judgment and decree for the preparation of the appeal.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that on the expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, a valuable right had accrued to the successful plaintiff. The power of attorney to file the appeal was with the counsel of WAPDA. The medical certificate attached with the application for condonation of delay shows that Khalid Mehmood was suffering from P.U.O. and was under treatment of the doctor and he was advised bed rest for 5 days w.e.f. 16‑5‑1987 to 20‑5‑1987. The deceased certified by the doctor was not so serious and he could easily contact his counsel and send the certified copy of the judgment and decree to him through other person. The learned Additional District Judge has given reasons for his refusal to condone the delay. The copy of the order of competent authority whereby the task of filing the appeal, delivery of the certified copy of the judgment and decree to the counsel for WAPDA, was assigned to Khalid Mehmood has not been annexed with the application for condonation of delay. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order refusing condonation of delay and also in the judgment and decree dismissing the appeal as barred by time. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A.A/W‑95/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.