2023 C L C 711
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
SHAH MUHAMMAD ----Appellant
Versus
ALLAH BAKHSH ----Respondent
R.F.A. No.01 of 2021, decided on 30th September, 2021.
(a) Limitation ---
----Law of limitation cannot be considered merely a formality and the same is required to be
observed and taken into consideration being mandatory in nature ---Purpose of the law of
limitation is to help the vigilant and not the indolent---Helping hand may not be extended to a litigant having gone into a deep slumber, or having become forgetful of his rights ---
However, the concerned person has to be made aware of the invasion of his interests and awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact.
(b) Limitation ---
----Person seeking condonation of delay must explain the delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the court and should also establish that delay has been caused due to reasons beyond his control.
None appeared for Appellant.
None appeared for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2021.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ----This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2018 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment") passed by the learned Majlis -e-Shoora, Chaghi, (hereinafter "the trial court") whereby the
suit of the appellant had been dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration,
cancellation of agreement dated 24.06.2007 in respect of plot No.2 and recovery of Rs.3,30,000/ - against the respondent before the trial court.
3. After framing of issues, the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence.
At the conclusion of the trial, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed on
09.10.2018, whereafter the instant appeal was filed.
4. Despite service of notice and repeated calls, counsel for the appellant is not in
attendance. The same was the position on the last five consecutive dates of hearings when none appeared and either request was sent, or adjournment was sought. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record.
5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court reveals that it
was passed on 09.10.2018, and the appellant/plaintiff has submitted an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial court on 10.10.2018, which was supplied to him on 11.10.2018 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed by him on 04.03.2020 after a delay of approximately one and half years while the stipulated period of limitation of ninety (90) days has been mentioned in Article 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ("the Act"). The appellant/plaintiff could not give any reasonable and plausible justification as to why the limitation should be condoned and in the absence of any lawful justification, no concession can be given. The law of limitation cannot be considered merely a formality, and the same is required to be observed and taken into consideration being mandatory in nature. The purpose of the law of limitation is to help the vigilant and not the indolent. A helping hand may not be extended to a litigant having gone into a deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights. However, the concerned person has to be made aware of the invasion of his interests, and awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact.
6. The delay in filing the appeal before this court seems to be due to negligence and
carelessness of the appellant, who failed to pursue his cause with due diligence and care as such he is not entitled to any indulgence by this court. It is now settled law that a person seeking condonation of delay must explain the delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the court and should also establish that delay has been caused due to reasons beyond his control. In the instant case, the delay in filing the appeal was neither explained nor any plausible, and justification reason has been given while filing the application for condonation of delay; as such, the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by time and the same is hereby dismissed.
SA/32/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.