Law:

Section:

This appeal has arisen out of a pre-emption suit, which was dismissed on 21 st December, 1988, by a Civil Judge, for the reason that necessary Talabs (demands for getting the land 'sold to another) had not been made by the appellant, Fazal Muhammad alias Fazla, before filing the suit, on the ground that he was a co-sharer of the land pre-empted by him. Appellant went in appeal before an Additional District Judge which also met with the same fate on 25th March, 1989. Now, he has preferred this second appeal on 25th, October, 1989, which is clearly time-barred.

 2. The appellant has moved C.M.No.4762-C of 1989 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Reasons given by the appellant in support of his plea are that after the dismissal of his first appeal, his counsel advised him not to go in for second appeal in view of the case-law then holding the field. According to the appellant, he is an illiterate person residing in a suburb of Kamalia town where he learnt on 8th October, 1989, from a friend, that the Supreme Court had changed its view and dispensed with the requirement of Talabs in suits like the one filed by him. On the same day, therefore, he filed an application for supply of copies of judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge which were made available to him on 10th October, 1989 and then he came to Lahore and engaged a counsel on 13th October, 1989, who after preparing his case, filed this appeal on 25th October, 1989.

 3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the "law remained in a fluctuating state inasmuch as more than six judgments on point were passed by the superior Courts" and the latest pronouncement has been made in Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1989 Supreme Court 771 so as to enable a co-sharer to claim right of pre-emption without making Talabs, the appellant is entitled to indulgence in the matter of limitation. Reliance is placed by him on East and West Steamship Company v. Queensland Insurance Co, Ltd. PLD 1961 (W.P.) Kar. 317, Gulab Chand v. Abbas Ali AIR 1917 Patna 239 and Rajani Kanta Kayal and others v. Bistoo Moni Dassi AIR 1927 Calcutta 718. His submission is that since delay on the part of the appellant was not intentional, it deserves to be condoned.