2001 PLP 819 (YLR)

2. The suit was contested and from the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-- (1) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP (3) Relief.

3. The learned trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.16,000 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff vide judgment and decree, dated 2-9-1996 and the Court recorded a finding on Issue No.2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, as under:

"Plaintiff appeared as P.W. 1 and also examined Walayat and Noor Muhammad, as P.W.2 and P.W.3. After the plaintiff examined, these witnesses defendants were granted as many as six opportunities including last chance to bring evidence on 3-7 1996 but owing to transfer of case from District Headquarters to Tehsil Headquarters, one more chance was given for today, but the defendants still failed to bring evidence despite grant of numerous opportunities. Their evidence was ultimately closed. As such, there is nothing in rebuttal of plaintiff's evidence; the same is, therefore, relied upon." The learned Additional District Judge also dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by recording findings:

"That Court did afford a last opportunity on 3-7-1996 for the evidence to be produced on 2-9-1996 i.e. a time period for two months was granted, proceedings taken by both the Courts were in continuation of the legal process and the order of the transferee Court cannot be looked putting aside the order passed by the earlier Court."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no sufficient opportunity of producing the evidence has been granted by the two Courts below. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is against the record. The petitioners-defendants were granted as many as six opportunities, including the last chance to bring evidence on 13-7-1996, therefore, there was no jurisdiction left for the trial Court except to close the evidence of the petitioners defendants under Order XVIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. As all the ingredients of malicious prosecution were present on the record against the petitioners-defendants for involving the respondent-plaintiff in false case by moving to the police by initiating campaign of filing application, therefore, the trial Court was legally right in granting decree for damages to the tune of Rs.16,000 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. First Appellate Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing the appeal. There is another aspect of the case that the revision petition of the petitioners is hopelessly time-barred. The revision petition against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge is, dated 29-6-1999. The petitioners applied for copy of the judgment vide Application No.4953, dated 29-6-1999 and the copy of the judgment and decree was supplied to him on 21-7-1999. He filed the revision petition vide diary No.1379, dated 29-9-1999. The revision was returned with the office objection on 4-12-1999. The petitioner was allowed 7 days time to remove those objections, which could be filed up to 11-12-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner slept over and refiled the revision petition on 11-6-2001. Under Volume V Chapter 1, Rule 4 of the High Court Rules and Orders the petition is to be filed after removing the objections within seven days. The petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. I am. afraid, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable in the civil revision to condone the delay in view of section 29 of the Act. Even otherwise, the petitioners did not file the revision petition after removing the office objections and the same is barred by limita tion. Delay cannot be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. (See Navid Ahmad v. Asif Riaz (PLD 1996 Lah. 702). There is concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners-defendants. No ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction is made. For the above said reasons, C.M. No. 1 of 2001 for condonation of delay as well as this civil revision is dismissed 'in limine. H.B.T./M-679/L Petition dismissed.