AHMAD NAWAZ Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from Judgment dated 27‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court.; whereby petitioners Civil Revision was dismissed.

2. The petitioners' suit for declaration having been dismissed, their appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners' revision before the High Court also failed on the ground that the condonation of delay being a matter of discretion by the lower at appellate Court, no justification had been made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the disputed period; namely, between the date when the copy is ready and the date when it is delivered, should have been excluded as of right being requisite for obtaining the copy. He has relied on West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Karachi v. Aziz Qureshi 1973 S C M R 555.

4. The Judgment in the case of Industrial Development Corporation, as also some other Judgments, including Fateh Muhammad and others v. Malik Qadir Bakhsh 1975 S C M R 157, were noticed by the High Court. It was rightly held that under the existing law the period as is in dispute in this case, could not be excluded as of right. However, in a given case, the delay could be condoned only on furnishing of sufficient explanation in that behalf. Thus no error of law has been committed.

5. Regarding the merits of application for condonation of delay, the petitioners .having lost before both the learned Courts below on findings of facts, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This petition, therefore, merits dismissal.

6. Before parting with this Judgment, it needs to be observed that the question of exclusion /condonation regarding the period spent between the date when the copy is ready for delivery and the date of obtaining delivery, has been the subject‑matter of considerable controversy since 1960, when the case of Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 443 was decided by the Lahore High Court. The litigant public experiences uncertainty and suffers considerable expense and inconvenience on account of existing state of law in this behalf. A legislative intervention may have to be considered. One of the various possibilities is that an appropriate explanation in section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, may be added. B According to one suggestion, it can be to the effect that the period spent from the date of the application for copy upto the duly intimated date of delivery of the same, be treated as time requisite for obtaining copy. The office shall bring these observations to the notice of the concerned authority.

7. With the foregoing observations this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.

M.B.A. / A‑198/ S Petition dismissed.