2006 PLP 3000 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.-The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit on 1-9-1987 against the defendant/appellant for declaration and rendition of accounts. It was averred that the tenders for construction of Banglows for Chenab Rangers Headquarters, Sialkot were called on 30-12-1981, the plaintiff/respondent being the highest bidder was awarded the contract. But the said contract could not be completed owing to the interference of the officials of the respondent. A notice dated 22-11-1982 was served upon the plaintiff/respondent for cancelling the contract. The suit was contested stating the plaintiff owed an amount of Rs.20,457.54 to the defendant/appellant. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-- (1) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? OPD (2) Whether the suit is barred under . Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C.? OPD (3) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of P/O No.3 of the written statement? OPD (5) Whether the contract of the plaintiff was not validly cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts? OPP (6) Relief. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent to the tune of Rs.2,29,226 vide judgment dated 27-11-1996. An appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Sialkot which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge who vide his judgment dated 6-12-1997 partly allowed the same and modified the decretal amount from Rs.2,29,226 to Rs.83,155 only. The appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. This appeal is barred by time. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree of the learned Additional District Judge was passed on 6-12-1997. The certified copy of the same was received on 18-12-1998. However, the copy of the - judgment/decree of the trial Court was received on 26-2-1998. The appellants were trying to arrange for court-fee which was sanctioned on 14-3-1998 and the appeal was filed on 16-3-1998. Learned counsel contended that though the appeal was barred by three days but the delay was unavoidable in view of the aforementioned circumstances and that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Reliance was placed on West Pakistan Province through Collector, Mianwali v. Hakim Abdur Rahim Khan and 4 others 1988 CLC 1791.

2. I have gone through the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. I am afraid the contention of the learned counsel has no merit. No indulgence can be shown to Government Departments and no preferential treatment could be offered to the Government Departments or autonomous bodies and their cases have to be dealt with in the same manner as the cases of an ordinary citizen. See Chairman, District Evacuee Trust v. Abdul Khaliq through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2002 SC 436; Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad, through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Sambrial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager and 3 others 1998 SCMR 307; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt. of Pakistan and 5 others v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SCMR 727 and Govt. of Punjab, through Secretary (Services) SA&I Department, Lahore, and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC

396. That being so this appeal is dismissed as being barred by time. H.B.T./G-50/L Appeal dismissed.