FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus SAEED AHMAD

The petitioner filed an appeal against the trial Court's judgment, dated 30‑10‑1986 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 9‑5‑1987 on the question of limitation. The decision of the learned lower appellate Court is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The respondents are absent despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the record I find that the petitioner applied for copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court on 4‑11‑1986. Though the copy was ready on 20‑11‑1986 but it was actually delivered to him on 24‑11‑1986. As held in Gul Muhammad v. Allah Ditta P L D 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 443 the copying agency is not the agent of the applicant, the period of limitation, thus, would commence from the date of delivery of the copy to the petitioner. The appeal filed on 20‑11‑1986 was` thus within time. The view taken by the learned District Judge is not in conformity with law.

4. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order set aside and the case sent back to the learned lower appellate Court for a decision of the petitioners' appeal on merit. As the respondent has not entered appearance, despite service, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

S.Q./F‑67/L Petition accepted.