GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Works and another vs Messrs MALBROW BUILDERS, CONTRACTOR, SIALKOT

' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 4-5- 2004 whereby R.S.A. Preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit on 1-9-1987 for declaration and rendition of accounts with the averment that pursuant to tenders called on for the construction of Bungalows for Punjab Rangers, Sialkot dated 30-12-1981, the respondent floated its bid, which being the highest was accepted and contract awarded to him which could not be completed due to uncalled for interruption made by the official functionaries. On 22-11-1982 a notice was served upon the plaintiff for cancellation of the contract. The suit preferred on behalf of respondent was contested and the learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording the evidence pro and contra decreed the suit in the sum of Rs,2, 29,226 by means of judgment/decree dated 27-11-1996. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was partly allowed vide judgment, dated 6-12-1997 and the decretal amount was -reduced from Rs,2,29,226 to Rs,83,155 which was assailed before the learned High Court by means of R.S.A. Which has been rejected, hence this petition.

3. There is no denial of the fact that appeal is barred by time and no plausible justification could be rendered on the basis whereof it could be condoned. It is stressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that delay was under the compelling circumstances in view of the time consuming formalities and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for it. It is also contended that on the basis of technicalities the petitioner could not have been knocked out. In order to substantiate his contentions reliance has been placed on the case Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC 724.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioners, scanned the entire record and perused the judgments of Courts below. We have also examined the dictum as laid down by this Court in Managing Director SSGC Limited's case (supra) which is not applicable as it was given altogether in a different context and there is a drastic difference between both the cases. We may mention here that the question of limitation being not mere a technicality cannot be taken lightly and the rights accrued to the other party due to limitation cannot be snatched away without sufficient cause and lawful justification which are lacking in this case. We are conscious of the fact that sufficient cause is not capable of connotation with exactitude and would differ from case to case but laxity, carelessness and cursory approach of the functionaries of the Government do not constitute sufficient cause and hence the question of any indulgence does not arise. The delinquent officers/officials who are responsible for such delay must be taken to task being responsible for the loss of public exchequer.

5. Be as it may no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in the judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. No preferential treatment can be shown to the Government as held on various occasions by this Court. In this regard reference can be made to Chairman, District Evacuee Trust v. Abdul Khaliq through Leg al Heirs and others PLD 2002 SC 436; Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Sambrial, District Sialkot and others v. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager and 3 others 1998 SCM R 307; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan and 5 others v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SCM R 727 and Government of Punjab through Secretary (Services) S.A.& I Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1995 SC 396. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.