4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contends that the petitioner remained negligent and careless to make up the deficiency of Court fee within the stipulated period unequivocally directed by the learned first Appellate court while granting one opportunity to lead evidence which he failed to perform, hence the learned first appellate Court had rightly rejected application of petitioner. Further contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Muhammad Wahid and another v. Nasrullah and another (PLJ 2016 SC 25) elaborated in the said judgment that the Court had the jurisdiction to extend time provided the application for its extension of the stipulated period if had been moved before lapse of fixed period and beyond that the Court being functus officio is ceased to have jurisdiction to make any change in the order or judgment, therefore, the learned first Appellate court has not committed any illegality. Thus whatever the grounds taken by the petitioner are not helpful for him as he approached the Court after lapse of the stipulated period, hence the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra squarely is applicable leaving no room for this Court to interfere in the refusal order passed by the learned first Appellate Court.
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Civil Revision
3790-11
2017 LHC 4831
0 Comments