EnglishFrenchPortugueseRussianUrdu

2014 C L C 1166

 

[Peshawar]

 

Before Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J

 

Messrs KARAM CNG through Dildar—-Appellant

 

Versus

 

CNGC, SWABI and others—-Respondents

 

R.F.A. No.59-P with C.M. Nos.83 and 84 of 2013, decided on 8th April, 2013.

 

Shakeel Ahmad for Appellant.

 

ORDER

 

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.— The instant Regular First Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-2-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge-VI, Swabi whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/ defendants.

 

2. Brief facts of the case are that Messrs Karam CNG Station Jehangira appellant/plaintiff brought a suit against respondents/ defendants for a declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff is consumer of Sui Gas Company and availing Sui Gas connection under Gas Meter No.40997830001 and DR No.00843920 and it was averred in the plaint that Sui Gas Bill for the month of May, 2012 amounting to Rs.4833260 was not prepared according to the consumed units; that the appellant/plaintiff was depositing gas bill regularly and had never remained defaulter.

 

3. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing written statement. After framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Civil Judge-V1, Swabi dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff vide his judgment and decree dated 22-2-2012. Hence the instant appeal.

 

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have also perused the material available on the file.

 

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-VI, Swabi reveals that it was passed on 22-2-2012 and the appellant/plaintiff has submitted an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on 24-2-2012 which were supplied to him on 29-2-2012 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed by him on 4-2-2013 after a delay of 264 days while the stipulated period of limitation of ninety days (90) has been mentioned in Article 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff could not give any reasonable and plausible justification, as to why the limitation should be condoned and in absence of any lawful justification no concession can be given. The law of limitation cannot be considered merely a formality but the same is required to be observed and taken into consideration being mandatory in nature. The purpose of 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 deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights. Concerned person has, however, to be made aware of the invasion of his interests, and awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact. Thus. in view of the above discussion, this Regular First Appeal Petition being hopelessly time barred is liable to be dismissed in limine.

 

6. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine along with C.Ms. Nos.83 and 84 of 2013.

 

AG/218/P Appeal dismissed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email