Muhammad Haneef (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)

Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

R.A. No.S-163 of 2013

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(S)

For hearing of main case.

Mr. Faiz Ahmed Chandio, advocate holds brief for Mr. Ishrat Ali Lohar, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Abdul Aziz Palli, advocate holds brief for Mr. Imdad Ali R. Unar, advocate for respondent No.8.

Mr. Wali Muhammad Jamari, Assistant Advocate General.

Applicant Muhammad Haneef filed FC Suit No. 188 of 2009, which was dismissed on 24.12.2012 after the official respondents/defendants filed an application challenging the maintainability of the said FC Suit. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-V, Hyderabad, namely Civil Appeal No.

29 of 2013 but that too was dismissed. The relevant extract of the order passed by the appellate forum is reproduced as under:

“It appears that the impugned order is passed on [24]14-12-2012. It further appears that the appellant applied for certified true copies of impugned order on 09-01-2013 and the cost is paid on 22-01-2013 and the appeal is filed on 11-02-2013. If the time is calculate the appellant applied for certified true copies after 16 days and then he deposited the cost after 12 days after applying of Certified true copies and copies supplied on 30-01-2013. Thus it appears that the period of about 28 days deductable and after delivery of appeal on 30-01-2013. The appellant had only two days for filing this appeal which filed with the delay of 10 days and no explanation is put forwarded by the appellant for filing of appeal with delay of 20 days despite fact that according to the Article 113 of Limitation Act, 30 days is provided for filing of appeal.

In view of above discussion I find that the appeal is hopelessly time barred as such the same is stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Aggrieved by the impugned order the applicant/appellant-plaintiff has preferred this Revision Application in 2013, and almost 13 years later, it remains on the docket of the Circuit Court in Hyderabad pending hearing.

None has been present on behalf of the applicant. On the last several dates of hearing, various advocates have held his brief. Counsel holding brief has submitted a Statement dated 18.05.2026, signed by the advocate for the applicant, which is taken on record and a copy supplied to the other side. Additionally, applicant has submitted for consideration of this bench judgments of Supreme Court reported as 1992 SCMR 1828 (Abdul Murad Khan versus Mst. Noshaba and 9 others), 2000 SCMR 354 (Nooruddin and 3 others versus Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan and 3 others) and a judgment passed by single bench of this High Court reported as 2009 CLD 1367 (Habib Bank Ltd. through Authorized Attorneys versus Messrs Wisdom Education System (Pvt.) Ltd. and 6 others). Respondent Counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant.

Heard Counsel. I have perused the memo of revision application and the grounds stated therein. No explanation has been provided to meet the challenge raised in the impugned order by the appellate Court in the impugned order finding the applicant’s appeal to be barred by time. The applicant has submitted, as per the memo of revision, that although the order he had impugned in his appeal was passed on 24.12.2012, the winter holidays had commenced the following day, from 25.12.2012 to 04.01.2013. A detailed chronological summary of the timeline for obtaining a certified copy of the appeal and filing the appeal is also found in the Statement dated 18.05.2026. Therefore, when the applicant applied for certified true copies of the impugned order on 09.01.2013, five days after the court’s winter holidays, the appeal filed on 11.02.2013 was still within time.

As per the record available, the application for obtaining a certified copy was filed by the applicant on 09.01.2013, i.e. 16 days after the announcement of judgment dated 24.12.2012. On 09.01.2013, 16 days’ time had elapsed out of 30 days’ time to

file an appeal. When an application is filed in Court, the period of limitation stops running during the period the office takes to assess costs. In the present case, the office assessed costs on 22.01.2013. Thus, the period of limitation paused from 09.01.2013 to 22.01.2013, and once again re-commenced running once the office determined the costs on 22.01.2013. These costs were paid by the applicant on 29.01.2013. During this period, i.e. 22.01.2013 to 29.01.2013, the clock kept ticking.

Thus, another 07 days’ time elapsed during such period, meaning that a total of 23 days’ time (16 + 7) out of 30 days had elapsed as of 29.01.2013. The time stopped, once again, when the copying branch, after receiving costs, took time to prepare a certified copy, which was made ready on 29.01.2013. The applicant did not take delivery of the copy on 29.01.2013, which meant that another day was lost, notwithstanding that after preparation of the certified true copy, the requisite notice under Rule 33 of Chapter-IV Part-A of Subordinate Establishments of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circular, showing the copy ready for delivery, is to be posted on the notice board of the trial Court. It is not entirely clear if this requirement was met; however, be that as it may, as of 30.01.2013, when the appellant received a copy on the following day, i.e. on 30.01.2013, now 24 days’ time had elapsed out of 30 days’ time to file an appeal. Yet the applicant/appellant did not lodge the appeal in Court within the six-day time limit, i.e., by or on or before 05.02.2013. Instead, the applicant/appellant filed C.A. No.29/2013 in Court on Monday, 11.02.2013 – beyond the period of limitation. The appeal filed was now barred by time. He also did not move an application seeking condonation of the delay in time for filing the said appeal.

Every day of delay was required to be explained to the appellate forum, but no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the applicant. The winter holidays did not prevent the running of the period of limitation. The holiday period cannot be excluded simply and must be reckoned in the context of calculating the period of limitation in the background of each particular case. The judgments relied upon by the counsel holding brief are not relevant to the case in hand. The background of this case is entirely different from that of the authorities relied upon by the applicant.

In my view, the more relevant authority is Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others versus

Al-Baraka Bank Pakistan Limited, 2022 SCMR 1868, which approved the division bench’s judgment dated 19.10.2018 passed by this (High) Court in I.A. No.15 of 2018 (Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others versus Al-Baraka Bank Limited). The two judgments cited above, although concerning a suit filed in the banking jurisdiction, well summarise the formula for filing a certified copy of a judgment and decree and its interplay with the limitation for filing a suit. The provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are applicable to the filing of suits and where the period of limitation expires during vacations, the claimants/plaintiffs may well be saved from the bar of limitation on filing their claims/suits if done so on the first opening day of the Court subject to meeting certain pre-conditions one of which condition includes the time spent in obtaining certified copy. Unfortunately, the Statement dated 18.05.2026 and the timeline of events associated with the time spent obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and decree, and thereby extending the period of limitation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot come to the rescue of the applicant.

Given the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, although the final calculation reached by the appellate forum may be off/incorrect; the reason for dismissal of the appeal, that is, it was time-barred, is correct. Accordingly, this Revision Application stands dismissed in the above terms.

JUDGE

Irfan Ali