IFTIKHAR ALI vs Sh. ABDUL RASHID and others

' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 28-2-2002 of the Lahore High Court, through which appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge and Rent Controller in appeal and ejectment petition respectively has been dismissed as barred by time.

2. The application made by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act was held to be not maintainable, for the said section of the Limitation Act was not applicable by virtue of section 29 of the said Act because period of limitation prescribed under the special law was different from the one prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing appeal before the High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application, it was averred that the petitioner was not issued notice by the Copying Agency for procuring certified copy of the judgment therefore, according to section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, the time spent for obtaining certified copy would extend to the date when the certified copy of the judgment was delivered, therefore, in this manner if the period for obtaining certified copy is counted from 25-1-2001 when application for obtaining certified copy was made up to 27-12-2001 when the same was delivered to the petitioner, appeal would be within limitation whereas the same would be barred by time if the said time is counted only up to the date when the copy was ready i.e, 8-11-2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned has no answer as in the said application, it was not disclosed as to the date which was indicated to the petitioner on the chit issued by the Copying Agency to obtain certified copy because that would have been the determining factor, because originally in routine on the Chit, date is indicated by the Copying Agency on which date the applicant the required to inquire from the Copying Agency about the readiness of the copy. If the same was not ready on the said date, then the question would have arisen whether further notice should be given to the petitioner or not, therefore, in our view even if the reasons given by the learned Judge of the High Court that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable are ignored and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered, the same has no factual basis as no pleading was made as observed above as to the date which was given to the petitioner originally to procure copy from the Copying Agency. Even otherwise, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and find that the order passed by the two Courts below on questions of fact were in accordance with the law based on correct appraisal, of evidence in particular, the question of bona fide use therefore, this petition even on that score is liable to be dismissed.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused.