1986 PLP 1177 (MLD)

Mian Saeed ur Rehman Farrukh for Appellants. Muhammad Aslam Naqi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1986. This appeal against the remand order passed by the learned' Additional District' Judge, Kasur, on the 15th May, 1984, arises out of the following circumstances. Mst. Hamida Begum, appellant, brought suit for recovery of Rs.3,603.54 as her share in rent of the house in dispute bearing No. 7dI/B.S2‑II/I, situate in Kucha Hajaman, inside Mori Gate, Kasur, against the respondents. The defendants put a contest to the suit. As the perusal of the record indicates the parties at one stage tried to settle the dispute by negotiations, which did not bear any fruitful result. On the 28th February, 1981, the learned counsel for the respondents stated before the learned trial Court that he had no instructions to pursue the case. The respondents were proceeded against ex parte and learned Court decreed the appellant's suit that day.

2. On the 14th February, 1982, the respondents filed with the learned District Court, Kasur, appeal against the ex parte decree passed by the learned trial Court. In the memorandum of appeal, they spun out a long drawn story of resolution of dispute with the appellant, protracted negotiations with her towards implementation of the settlement and her ultimate deceitful wriggling out of the compromise. They moved application for condonation of delay on the what they had stated in the memorandum of appeal. The appellant vehemently opposed his move for securing condonation of delay in filling the appeal. Surprisingly, the learned Additional district judge disposing of the appeal did not at all touch the question of condonation of delay. He thought that the suit ought to have been decided after recording evidence. Therefore, setting aside the judgment and decree under appeal he remanded the suit to the learned trial Court for fresh decision after receiving evidence of the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant took strong exception to the, manner of disposal of appeal by the learned appellate Court below without adverting to and deciding the question of condonation of delay. He contended that the appeal was hopelessly time‑barred and that the respondents had not at all been able to give satisfactory explanation .for the inordinate delay that occurred in bringing the appeal before the Court. The reasons for delay have been set out in the memorandum of appeal in general terms and events have been narrated without dates. When delay of each and every day has to be explained what ha been stated in the memorandum of appeal does not by any standard, and it is so considered even by the learned counsel for the respondents, constitute a valid explanation for the delay of almost a year. The respondents hopelessly failed to explain the delay for asking condonation thereof. In the circumstances the appeal ought to have been dismissed thereof time‑barred. There was no point in touching merits of the case and remanding the suit. This appeal is accepted with costs, the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court below are set aside and the respondents' appeal is dismissed. A.A. Appeal accepted.