Mirza MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER LANDS and others

' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 19-1-2001 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Civil Revision No,151-D of 1990 was allowed, the judgment, dated 2-10-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum was set aside and the appeal was remanded with the following observations:-- "The requisite time in this case could be either 26-6-1989 until 20-8-1989 or 26-6-1989 until 5-9- 1989, depending upon the endorsement given on the slip issued by the Copying Agency or in the Register of the Copying Agency. The learned Additional District Judge has given no thought on this fad nor did he call the Register of the Copying Agency for ascertaining what was conveyed to the petitioner on 20-8-1989, the date on which the copy is said to be prepared. In case there is no notice to the petitioner for 20-8-1989 for obtaining the copy, then the time requisite for obtaining the copy shall be the time between 26-6-1989 until 5-9-1989 which had to be excluded, and which A would then make the appeal within time having been filed on 1-10-1989. But in case the date mentioned for purpose of delivery was 1-10-1989 then the appeal is patently time-barred.

Reference in this connection may be made to the statement of petitioner, reflected in the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, where he had categorically stated that he had been contacting the Copying Agency for obtaining the copy but as copy was not prepared, he could only receive it on 5-9-1989.

' Since the judgment and decree from which this civil revision has been filed, is not of assistance to this Court in calculating the time for limitation based on the factual position and as the important rights of the parties were involved, the best thing would be in setting aside the judgment impugned and referring the case back to the learned District Judge with directions that he may either ascertain the aforementioned facts personally and decide the appeal or entrust it to any Additional District Judge for this purpose."

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that the appeal has been remanded on correct premises inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court is the proper forum for resolving the imbroglio highlighted in the observations reproduced above. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.