2002 PLP 1405 (SCMR)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to, appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 14‑7‑1999 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court whereby C.Ms. Nos. I of 1999 and 2 of 1999 moved for restoration of Civil Revision No. 1667 of 1990 and condonation of delay in filing the application were dismissed on the ground of limitation. The relevant facts are that through a civil suit the respondent had prayed that the petitioners be restrained permanently from interfering with his cultivating possession of the land in dispute and directed through a mandatory injunction to transfer the suit land in his favour in terms of an agreement dated 1‑12-1976. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 4‑6‑1989 but the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 15‑5‑1990, and the suit was decreed. The revision petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 11‑11‑1996. The petitioner moved an application on 12‑7‑1999 for restoration of the same together with an application for condonation of delay but both were dismissed as barred by time with the following observations:‑‑ "It is by now well‑recognition maxim for a party who seeks indulgence and condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act as to account for and explain the delay of each day. In the present case a perusal of the application under section 5 of Limitation Act and the affidavit filed in support thereof would show that the applicants/revision petitioners not only failed to give any sufficient cause for not filing the application immediately after the knowledge of the dismissal of revision. It is also settled proposition of law as mentioned above that when a valuable right had accrued to the other party by the lapse of time he could not be rightly deprived of that right. It is also grund norms that the High Court has to see that justice should be done to both the parties according to the law. The basic route to guide the discretion whether the applicants have guided with reasonable diligence in presenting the application. In view of what has been discussed above I have, therefore, no hesitation in finding that there is no sufficient cause disclosed by the applicants/petitioners due to which they failed to tile application for restoration of the revision petition within time."

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the caveator and going through the record with their assistance we find no difficulty in holding that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. The revision petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 11‑11‑1996 but the application for restoration of the same was made after 2 years and 8 months. The petitioners have singularly failed to explain delay of each day which they were obliged to do. The plea that a copy of the cause list was not supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners hardly constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay in the absence of an affidavit of the person concerned. Besides, the petitioners failed to keep contract with their counsel and pursue the petition diligently. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./H‑56/S Leave refused.