| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2076 2006 SLD 2076 2006 CLC 736 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 2005, decision dated: 7-03-2005.
SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 2005, decision dated: 7-03-2005.
SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SARGODHA IMPROVEMENT TRUST through ChairmaN
VS
ABDUL JABBAR and 2 others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 100---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Second appeal---Limitation---Application for certified copy of impugned was filed after 2 months and 21 days from passing of impugned order and its copy was prepared after 22 days of filing the application delivered to appellant after more than two months from its preparation---Appeal filed by appellant being barred by limitation, was dismissed as time-barred. Iftikhar Ali v. Sh. Abdul Rashid and others 2003 SCMR 1560 ref. Haji Ch. Haroon Akbar Cheema for Appellant. Muhammad Ghani for Respondents. ORDER SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 2005 calling in question the judgments and decrees dated 31-7-1996 of the trial Court and the first appellate Court dated 6-7-2004 respectively. 2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the instant appeal is barred by limitation. In this context, I have noticed that an application in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, and perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reveals that the same was passed on 6-7-2004. It appears that the application for procuring the certified copy thereof was filed on 27-9-2004; the copies were prepared on 19-10-2004 and delivered to the appellant on 23-12-2004. If the period between the preparation and delivery of the copy is excluded, then this appeal is within time and vice versa, it would be deemed as time-barred. The aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of one Nasar Ullah Khan, stated to be an employee of the appellant, and the contents of the said affidavit are as under: "That I am the employee of Sargodha Improvement Trust, Sargodha, I persue the cases of SIT Sargodha. Copies of the documents were applied well in time by the deponent well in time. That the copying agency Sargodha prepared some documents before the delivery date, no notice or intimation was given to the deponent in spite of query by the deponent." 3. It is a matter of common practice and in the normal course of events, the copying agency…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492