COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, CHASHMA RIGHT BANK CANAL PROJECT, WAPDA, D.I. KHAN and others vs GHULAM SADIQ and others

' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---This Direct Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Peshawar High Court Bench, D.I. Khan in R.F.A.

No,5 of 1998 on 24-9-1999.

2. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court proceeded with resolving the question of limitation of 7 days in filing the regular first appeal against the appellants Collector Land Acquisition, Chashma Right Bank Canal Project, WAPDA, D.I. Khan including the Chief Engineer, Chashma Right Bank Canal Project, WAPDA, D.I. Khan and others not having been sufficiently explained, in the application seeking condonation of the same. Learned counsel for the appellants did not address any arguments on the question raised in the petition as also in the precedent cases, (1) Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Messrs Azhar Brothers Limited (1990 SCM R 1059) and (2) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad. Khan (1981 SCM R 37) to reach the conclusion that the appellants had failed to establish sufficient cause for the condonation of delay of 7 days and that the delay of each day has not been accounted for. According to the learned counsel, the observations made by this Court in Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Member, Board of Revenue and another v. Ghulam Muhammad and 4 others (2001 SCM R 19) to the effect that in the absence of any cooperation being extended to the Advocate-on- Record for filing petition in the Court in time, case for condonation of delay is made out and, therefore, even in the instant case, the question of limitation should have been resolved in favour of the appellants.

3. We are afraid the argument loses sight of the fact the peculiarities of each case have their own repercussion on all questions of law and facts involved therein. We find that the case reported as Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Nazar Muhammad Fatiana and others (1998 SCM R 2376) in which one of us (Muhammad Arif, J.) was also a Member, the judgment was authored by the then Chief Justice Ajmal Mian reiterating the law declared by this Court that Government cannot be treated differently than an ordinary litigant while considering the questions as to whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Many other precedents were also referred to, in the latter precedent to hold that the above position was applicable to the said case. The plea that the decision on merits suffered from any alleged infirmity loses all its significance when considered in juxtaposition with letter and spirit of the law requiring Court/forum concerned to dismiss application/petition/appeal if the same is beyond time within the contemplation of section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Mr. Sadat Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants was not in a position to even so much as allude to any distinguishing feature of his clients' case which may take it out of the above-referred category of litigants, including the Government and/or any specific Department of the Federal or Provincial Governments who are to be treated alike in relation to condonation of delay. No case for interference with the impugned judgment dated 24-9-1999 has been made out.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.