PIR MUHAMMAD vs EDUCATION TOWN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE

ORDER

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption. He was ordered to deposit Rs.

68,580 as Zar-e-Panjam on 14-9-1968 by 9-11-1968. On 31-10-1968 the petitioner applied for permission to furnish security instead of making a deposit in cash. The case came up for hearing on the 9th of November, 1968 but the defendant did not appear on that hearing. The case was, therefore, adjourned and the petitioner's application for furnishing security was rejected but the time for making the deposit was extended up to 14-12-1968.

2. On 22-11-1968 the petitioner applied for permission to furnish a Bank guarantee. This application was allowed on the 26th of November, 1968. On 12-12-1968 the petitioner again applied for extension of time as the Bank had been moved by him but the guarantee had not yet been received, On 14-12-1968 the learned Court refused to grant further time and rejected the plaint. An appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and an R. S. A. Was similarly dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 10-7-1975. On 5-9-1975 the petitioner filed an application for review which was dismissed on 28-10-1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal on 12-11-1975.

3. This petition is within time from the dismissal of the review petition in the High Court and is barred by 34 days if limitation is counted from the date when the R. S. A. Was dismissed. The review application ha admittedly got no merit in it wherefore we cannot grant leave to appeal against the review application. In fact, the review petition was filed only to gain time for filing the civil petition for special leave to appeal.

4. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing the petition against the judgment delivered in the Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he should be allowed the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the facts of this case because the review petition was not dismissed on account of a "defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature".

5. This petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, not maintainable because of the bar of limitation. So far as the merits of the case a concerned there is nothing which could be said in favour of the petitioner. He was given enough latitude by the learned Civil Judge and if he could not g take advantage of the various extensions in time granted to him and the acceptance of his prayer to furnish a Bank guarantee, there is nothing which this Court could do to extricate him from the predicament in which he has lodged himself. This petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.