Recovery of 22 million bill from company .
Form No.HC.JD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
M/s. Sui Northern Gas
Pipelines Limited
VS.
M/s. Bhatti Fabrics etc.
S. No. of order/
proceedings
Date of order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties
or counsel, where necessary
10.06.2024
M/s. Faisal Yaqub Khan and Muhammad Yasin
Qadri, Advocate.
C.M. No.1/2024 & Main Case
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this
application (C.M.No.1/2023) under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1908 the applicant seeks
condonation of delay occurred in filing the titled
appeal against the consolidated judgment & decree
dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Faisalabad.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the
appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.12,19,57,918/- against the respondent/defendant in
respect of consumption of sui gas as after adjustment of
deposited security, the said amount is found outstanding
against the respondent/defendant. The
respondent/defendant filed contesting written statement
as well as filed a separate suit for declaration,
mandatory and permanent injunction against
the appellant/plaintiff. The Gas Utility Court,
Faisalabad consolidated both the suits, framed
issues, recorded evidence of the parties and
decreed the suit filed by the respondent/defendant
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
2
whereas dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff
vide consolidated judgment & decree dated
17.03.2022. Against the said decision, the appellant
filed instant appeal alongwith an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for
condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal.
3.
We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the applicant/appellant and have gone
through the record.
4.
Admittedly, the Gas Utility Court passed the
judgment & decree on 17.03.2022. The appellant
filed application for obtaining the certified copy of
the impugned judgment & decree on 17.03.2022 and
the requisite certified copies were prepared on
20.04.2022 and instant appeal was filed on
07.05.2022. On the same day, office of this Court
raised certain objections allowing three days time to
remove the same but the instant appeal was re-filed
on 08.06.2024 after about 02 years & 02 months
from the date of passing of the impugned judgment
& decree whereas under Section 13 of the Gas
(Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 only a
period of thirty days is provided for filing of the
appeal against the final decision / decree to this
Court, as such this appeal is blatantly time barred.
5.
Alongwith the appeal, an application
(C.M.No.1/2024) for condonation of the delay was
filed with the plea that the file of the title matter was
mixed up with other files and on inquiry of the
client it was traced out and thereafter the appeal was
instituted immediately, thus the delay was neither
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
3
willful nor deliberate and same may be condoned,
suffice it to say that the Gas (Theft Control and
Recovery) Act, 2016 is a special law which provides
30 days limitation for filing an appeal against the
final decision/decree as such the provisions of
Limitation Act, 1908 which is general law in nature,
is not applicable to the instant case. It is settled law
the provisions of the special enactment always take
preference over the general provisions of the Act
ibid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported as
Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Soneri
Bank Ltd. and another (2018 CLD 203) and of this
Court reported as Messrs MCB Bank Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner Inland Revenue (2014 PTD 1874).
6.
As regard the argument of the learned
counsel for the applicant/appellant that initially the
appeal was filed on 07.05.2022 which is well within
the prescribed period of limitation, thus any period
consumed in removing the office objections cannot
frustrate a statutory remedy of appeal of the
appellant, suffice it to say that the appellant did not
remove the office objections within time, rather
remained mum for a period of 749 days and no
convincing reason has been furnished in this regard,
thus the above argument has no force as a statutory
remedy cannot be left open for a delinquent party to
challenge the adverse order at the time of its own
choice and if in contravention to the special
statutory provision of limitation, the time period for
availing a legal remedy is extended then there
would be no end of the adversarial litigation which
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
4
tantamount to frustrate the ends of justice. Reliance
in this regard is placed on a judgment of the
Supreme Court of Pakistan cited as Asad Ali and 9
others Vs. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD
2020 SC 736) the relevant portion whereof is
reproduced as under:
“14. In the context of controversy before us,
namely whether limitation stops running if an
appeal is filed within time, even if it is returned
for removing objections and re-filing the same,
reference may usefully be made to a judgment of
this Court reported as Lahore Development
Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR
1224), where this Court has clearly and
categorically held as follows:
“Learned counsel appearing in support of
this petition has not addressed us on the
dismissal of the revision petition on the
ground of limitation. On perusal of the
impugned judgment, however, we find that
dismissal of the revision petition as timebarred is unexceptionable. Revision
petition was originally filed in the High
Court on 29-12-1994. The Deputy
Registrar (Judicial) raised certain
objections and returned the revision
petition on 4-1-1995 with the direction to
remove the objections within seven days.
Revision petition was, however, re-filed by
the petitioner on 10-10-1995. Office
raised an objection that the revision
petition when re-filed had become timebarred by 247 days and the
petitioner was, therefore, asked to file an
application for condonation of delay and
it was then that the petitioner moved an
application under section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay. By that time, the revision petition,
as observed by the learned Judge, had
become barred by 300 days. Be that as it
may, the delay was sought to be condoned
on two grounds, viz that due to the change
of office, the case file got mixed up in the
heap of other files and could not be traced
despite best efforts of the officials and the
law as to limitation for filing the revision
petition was misconstrued by the
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
5
petitioner as previously no limitation was
prescribed therefor. The application was
supported by an affidavit of Deputy
Director (Legal)/General Attorney of the
petitioner. Both the grounds were repelled
by the learned Judge holding that the
objections raised by the Deputy Registrar
of the High Court were not of such a
nature as would require recourse to the
office of the petitioner and in any case, it
was not believable that the file could not
be located for about a year. Note was also
taken of the fact that no affidavit of the
officials who were stated to have made the
efforts to locate the file was placed on
record nor was it shown as to what action
was taken against the officials who failed
in the discharge of their duties in locating
the file. With respect to the second
ground, it has been observed by the
learned Judge that ignorance of law is no
excuse and in this case, the change in law
regarding the limitation for filing a
revision petition was knowing to all the
members of legal profession. The
circumstances pointed out by the learned
Judge quite clearly show that the
petitioner's officials acted with gross
negligence in re-filing the revision
petition. They took almost one year in
doing what they were required to do in
seven days and the explanation offered by
them for this inordinate delay has not
been found to be convincing by the
learned Judge and rightly so in our view.
It has not been denied that the High Court
Rules and Orders empowered the Deputy
Registrar to raise the objections and fix
the time for removing the same. That
being so, revision petition re-filed long
after the expiry of the period specified by
the office was rightly dismissed as timebarred. Even on merits, the view taken by
the two Courts below consequent upon the
findings recorded by them on the basis of
the admitted documentary evidence was
not open to any legitimate exception.”
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a
recent order dated 11.07.2023 passed in a case titled
as Zulfiqar Ahmad Vs Malik Sarfraz (deceased)
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
6
through his L.Rs., etc. [C.P.No.1334-L/2021] has
held that the time consumed in removing the
objections will be counted under limitation and if
time consumed more than the provided in the
statute, then such matter will be dismissed as barred
by time. The relevant portion of the order (supra) is
reproduced as under:-
“This petition is barred by 146 days. There is no
application for condonation of delay. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that petition
was filed within time. However, record indicates
that petition was filed on 23.01.2021 but office
returned the file with objections and gave time
to remove office objections which were not
removed within time. Finally, after removal of
objections the petition was filed on 07.07.2021.
In this view of the matter, the petition was filed
with a delay of 146 days. Consequently, this
petition is dismissed as barred by time.”
7.
Besides above, limitation is not a technicality
rather it affects the remedies of a party and law of
limitation cannot be bypassed to rescue the indolent
persons who were sleeping over the infringement of
their rights. Reliance in this regard is placed on
cases cited as Ainuddin and others Vs. Abdullah and
another (2019 SCMR 880) and Asad Ali and 9
others Vs. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD
2020 SC 736). Thus, the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay
occurred in filing the instant appeal is dismissed
being not maintainable.
8.
Furthermore, a party could not be allowed to
sleep over an adverse order for infinitum and
challenge the same at the time of its own choosing
or according to its own whims and caprice rather the
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
7
aggrieved party is placed under legal obligation to
challenge such adverse decision/order/decree within
the prescribed period of limitation before the proper
forum, whereas after expiry of the prescribed period
of limitation, a tangible right stood accrued in
favour of the opposite party and the said right
cannot be frustrated merely on whimsical grounds.
Reliance is placed on cases cited as Shahid Pervaiz
alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen
(2006 SCMR 631), Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills
Ltd. VS Collector of Sales Tax and others (2013
SCMR 587), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali VS
Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi” (2014
SCMR 1594) and Ashiq Hussain Sabri Vs Secretary
Health, Government of the Punjab & 8 Others
(PLD 2011 Lahore 490 (D.B).
9.
As instant appeal is blatantly time barred
which deserves dismissal, as such there is no need
to requisition the record of the case and to decide
the issue raised in the main appeal on merits.
Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad
Din Vs Abdul Ghani & Another (2012 SCMR
1004).
10.
In view of above, this appeal is also
dismissed being barred by time.
11.
Before parting with this judgment, it is noted
with great concern that as a huge amount of
Rs.12,19,57,918/- was involved in this case but the
negligent conduct of the concerned officers/officials
of the appellant-company who were pursing the
matter is the most deplorable. This appeal was
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
8
initially filed on 07.05.2022 which met with certain
objections raised by the office of this Court but after
receiving back the file from the office, the
officers/officials of the appellant who were dealing
with the instant case, not only misplaced the
objection form but also did not re-file the appeal
within stipulated period rather they fell in deep
slumber for about 02 years and re-filed the appeal
on 08.06.2024 which constitute deliberate and
intentional misconduct of the said officers/officials,
which caused huge monetary loss to the appellantcompany. Thus, the concerned officers/officials
including the Legal Wing of the appellant-company
are prima facie responsible for this mischief.
Reliance is placed on a case cited as Chairman,
District Evacuee Trust Jhelum Vs. Abdul Khaliq
through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2002 SC
436) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan has held as under:
“5. We are conscious that on declining relief
either to the government or public litigant in
view of the provision of limitation, serious,
injustice is caused to either of the party before
the Court but we cannot help it in view of the
existing law. However, concerning the cases
belonging to the Government/autonomous
bodies, at least one thing can be done that if case
is decided against it on the question of limitation,
the direction must be passed to the high-ups of
the department so he/they may initiate
departmental action against those officers who
are directly or indirectly responsible for causing
delay in instituting the cases beyond period of
limitation and even in absence of such directions,
it would be duty of such officer to take action
accordingly because if such unscrupulous
persons are not proceeded against, they will have
no fear of causing huge losses to the
Government/autonomous functionaries at the
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
9
cost of public exchequer because ultimately it is
the public at large who suffers, being ultimate
beneficiaries of the Government property.
6. We appreciate the steps taken by the
incumbent Chairman of Evacuee Trust Property
Board, Lahore for initiating actions against the
officers who are responsible for filing instant
petition beyond period of limitation and we are
hopeful that in future other responsible officers
would also do so.”
Another reliance is placed on a judgment titled as
Chairman/Secretary, Pakistan Railways, Ministry of
Railways, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and
others Vs. Muhammad Sharif Javaid Warsi (PLD
2003 SC 6) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan has held as under:
“5… It would not be out of context to note here
that prior to this matter, we have already made
identical directions in the case of Chairman,
District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum (ibid) to the
effect that the officers of Government
Departments who are responsible for causing
delay in instituting proceedings before different
Courts shall be penalized because on account of
their such conduct, Government sustains
considerable loss which ultimately have to be
borne by the public and lethargic tactics of the
delinquent officers cannot be tolerated merely
either on account of their ignorance of law or for
any extraneous consideration.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in another
case cited as Province of Punjab Vs. Sh. M. Riaz
Shahid (2005 SCMR 1435) has held as under:
“8. However, before we part with this order we
must express our grave concern over the conduct
of the concerned officials in the matter of
discharge of their obligations and who were
consequently, grossly negligent in protecting
public interest. In the first place the
Superintending Engineer of Depalpur Canal
Circle was negligent in the matter for neither
having conducted the arbitration proceedings for
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
10
more than two years nor having informed the
concerned parties of his inability to perform the
said task. No interest was taken by the
Department to pursue the proceedings before the
Arbitrator which led to the passing of the award
in question. The Department was again more
than negligent in taking no steps to file an appeal
in the Lahore High Court in proper time and took
1-1/2 years to do the needful.
9. This is neither the first time nor the only time
when we have noticed such a misconduct on the
part of the Government functionaries in the
matter of protecting public interest. At times one
gathers the impression that the concerned
functionaries are in collusion with the private
parties and permit the proceedings to go
undefended and then file appeals and revisions
etc. In the higher fora only to use the same to
cover their illegal and dishonest designs. It is
about time that the Government took stock of
such-like conduct on the part of the Government
functionaries which cause huge losses to public
funds and property.
10. Send a copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary of the Government of Punjab who shall
look into the matter and then take proper action
against the delinquent officials. He should also
devise some mechanism and activate the same in
consultation with the Law Secretary, the Solicitor
and the Advocate-General amongst others to
ensure proper pursuit of Court cases and other
judicial proceedings so that public interest was
properly pursued and protected”
Office is directed to dispatch copies of this order
alongwith the appeal as well as the judgment &
decree of the Gas Utility Court to the Managing
Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited who
shall hold a thorough probe / extensive enquiry into
the matter, take stern action against the delinquent
officers/officials including the Legal Wing of the
appellant company involved in the delayed filing of
the appeal and affect recovery of amount from the
officers/officials who are found guilty in the said
inquiry. He is also directed to transmit copy of final
R.F.A. No.36584/2024
11
actions taken or recommendations made in this
regard to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial/Civil) of
this Court who shall place the same before this
Court for perusal on administrative side.
(Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) (Ch. Muhammad Iqbal)
Judge
Judge
Abdul Hafeez
Approved for reporting.
Judge
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment