Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,3,5,1,156

Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section: I,54

(a)    Administration of justice--- ----When the record of the Trial court is attached with the appeal then there is no need to summon the record of the Trial court and the same is to be considered. Sohail Hameed Butt v. Mst. Nudrat Nafees 2008 SCMR 635 and Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others PLD 2004 SC 10 ref. (b)    Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3, 5 & First Sched., Art. 156---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 54--Land acquisition, matter of---Appeal filed against Referee Court---Limitation--Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Scope ---Appellant being a Government Department ---Appeal was filed by Secretary Government Department with the delay of 318 days ---Stance taken by the appellants (Secretary -Government Department) was that reference/ judgment was not in the knowledge due to prolonged correspondence among the offices---Validity --Under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is the inherent duty of the Court to dilate into the question of limitation---Notably, the references were filed by the respondents in 2014 and after adopting due process, the same were decided by the Trial Court in the year 2024 which had been assailed under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act---Present appeal had been filed with the delay of 318 days---The communication and correspondence inter se the departments cannot be considered a valid and reasonable ground for condonation of delay---Provisions of Art.156 of the Limitation Act, 1908, would apply to appeals filed under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act--- The law of limitation is designed to ensure diligence in pursuing legal remedies---Appellants had to explain the delay of each and every day with justified and cogent reasons---In the absence of any reasonable cause, the delay for such a long period cannot be condoned---Record revealed that the counsel for the appellants was appearing during the proceedings before the Trial court and participated in each and every step--Thus, the ground for no knowledge was against the admitted facts and record of the Trial court, therefore, had no substance---Even otherwise, limitation is not a mere technicality rather it…