ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

1^st Civil Appeal No. S-28 of 2017

________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on application No.2 at Flag ‘A’.

2. For orders on CMA 1087/2017.

3. For orders on CMA 1088/2017.

4. For hearing of main case.

25-05-2018.

.-.-.-.-

There is an office objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal on the ground of limitation. On perusal of record it appears that impugned Judgment in the summary Suit No.09/2017 has been pronounced on 09.06.2017 whereby the suit of the present respondent was decreed as the present appellant failed to furnish the bank guarantee as per the earlier order passed by the Trial Court. This being the first appeal against the decree should be filed within ninety days. The certified copy of the Judgment available at page 15 shows that the appellant side applied for the copy on 19.10.2017 and after completing requisite formalities the same was delivered on 23.10.2017 and this appeal was filed on 21.11.2017. However, a period of more than four months has lapsed between the date of pronouncement of Judgment, 09.06.2017 and when applied for its copy on 19.06.2017. In terms of Article 156 of the Limitation Act 1908, the period prescribed for filing of this kind of appeal is ninety days from the date of Judgment. In the present circumstances, the present appellant cannot even take benefit of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, inter alia, extending benefit of exclusion of time in obtaining a copy of the impugned decision / decree, because the Appellant has applied for the same after expiry of the limitation period for preferring an appeal.

The appellant side has filed any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but without mentioning any cogent reason / ground justifying this inordinate delay in filing the appeal after five months. The appellant has only stated that his counsel did not inform him about the impugned decision. This is no ground, as, inter alia, a litigant should also be vigilant about his pending case / litigation as law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. On earlier dates the appellant and his counsel were time and again cautioned to address the office objection about maintainability of appeal but unfortunately no one appeared from the appellant side on 16.04.2018 and 30.04.2018, whereas on 07.05.2018 one counsel held brief on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, and the matter was adjourned but with a note of caution.

In view of the above the office objection is sustained; this appeal consequently being time barred is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.