{Ghulam Muhammad..

…Vs……Muhammad Haroon, etc}

[Family Appeal]

01-04-2024.
Present:- Mr. Farhan Abbas Sheikh Advocate for the appellant.

ORDER
The instant civil appeal has been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 20-07-2023 handed down by Mrs. Mehr-un-
Nisa, the then learned Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), M.B.Din,
whereby respondents’ suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was
partially decreed.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant civil
appeal.
3. Preliminary arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It transpires from the record that the appellant preferred
the instant family appeal challenging the validity and veracity of the
impugned order and decree dated 20-07-2023 before this Appellate
Court on 14-03-2024. Surprisingly, this appeal is badly time-barred
because the law has provided a period of 30 days for filing of an appeal
as envisaged under Article 152 of The First Schedule of Limitation
Act-1908. Admittedly, the instant appeal has been filed after a period of
06 months & 12 days. Though, an application seeking condonation of
delay has been appended with the appeal but the same lacks the
explanation regarding delay of each and every day in approaching this
Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
appellant is aged, sick and illiterate person; that on 29-02-2024, the
appellant came to know about the impugned order and decree during
the execution petition, whereupon he appointed fresh counsel and on
query from Court, it surfaces that impugned order and decree has been
fraudulently passed against the appellant; that on 29-02-2024, the
appellant for the first time came to know about the impugned order and
decree. He finally prayed that by taking a lenient view delay caused in
filing the instant appeal may be condoned.
6. As per appellant’s own contention, he came to know
about the impugned order and decree on 29-02-2024 but surprisingly
 2

he did not promptly applied for obtaining certified copies of the

impugned order and decree dated 20-07-2023 on the day of gaining
knowledge, rather he applied for the same on 02-03-2024 and
thereafter, he received certified copies on 05-03-2024 but again he did
not prefer the instant appeal on the same day, rather he filed this
appeal on 14-03-2024. All these facts speak volumes that the appellant
has not shown any eagerness at any stage to challenge the impugned
order and decree before this Court well in-time and apparently, he was
initially lacking interest to call in question validity and veracity of the
impugned order and decree and then all of sudden at belated stage he
realized to prefer an appeal against the impugned order and decree
after expiration of statutory period of limitation with unbelievable story
seeking condonation of delay. It is rudimentary principle of law that for
condonation of delay, each day’s delay has to be explained with proper
justification but in the present case the appellant has not been able to
place on record sufficient material for the said purpose. This Court gets
light from PLD 2011 SC 657, PLD 2011 SC 174, 2010 PLC (CS) 838,
1973 SCMR 304 in fortification of the above said cases of law.
Moreover, it is also provided in law that even a void order has to be
assailed within a period of limitation prescribed under the law. In this
regard, reliance is placed upon case law reported in 2007 SCMR 1032.
7. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of
delay as well as instant family appeal being miserably barred by
limitation stands dismissed in limine. File be consigned to the record
room after its due completion.
Announced.

01-04-2024. (Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Dogar)

District Judge, M.B.Din.