Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 12

  Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- S. 12 [as amended by Limitation (Amendment) Act (XIII of 1991)]--Computation of period of limitation --- Time requisite for supply of copy is to be calculated up to the date of delivery of the certified copy of the order in the absence of material on record to show that person concerned was intimated about the completion of the certified copy of the order earlier--Petitioner having never been intimated as to the completion of the certified copy of the order, appeal filed by him within thirty days with effect from the date of delivery of certified copy of the impugned order was, thus, within time. Limitation Act (IX of 1008)-- S. 12 [as amended by Limitation (Amendment) Act (XIII of 1991)]-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 --- Dismissal of appeal as being time barred --- Validity ---While determining period requisite for obtaining certified copy, intimation of a date of preparation of certified copy has to be given and established on record --- Petitioner was never even called upon to explain delay in filing appeal --- Appellate Court while dismissing appeal, thus, did not judiciously determine the question of limitation, therefore, judgment of dismissal of appeal was held to be without lawful authority and as such was set aside --- Appeal filed by petitioner would be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court and would be decided afresh on merits-Respondent's constitutional petition arising out of the same order had to be decided on the basis of the same evidence recorded in the case, therefore, his case was also remanded to the same, Court for decision afresh alongwith the decision of petitioner's appeal. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh for Petitioner. Kh. Muhammad Fayyaz Ahmad for Respondent No-1 Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Date of hearing: 16th May, 1993 JUDGEMENT This judgment will dispose of two Writ Petitions Nos.169 of 1992 and 170 of 1992, inasmuch 8 they arise out of the-same guardianship proceedings. Briefly stated facts of the case out of which these two Constitutional petitions have arisen are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married in the year 1976. Out of the wedlock three…