2026 PLP 1112 (YLR)

C.M. No. 3 of 2022 and main case Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, J.

This civil revision has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 26.10.2018 and 8.10.2021 passed by learned courts below, whereby the suit for declaration with permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 stood decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and the appeal filed by the petitioners against respondents Nos.1 and 2 stood dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 instituted the suit seeking a decree for declaration with permanent injunction alleging therein that he is owner in possession of a house constructed over Plot No.789, Block J-II situated in Jauhar Town, Lahore, which he had purchased from Muhammad Sarwar/respondent No.2. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. No body appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, hence he was proceeded ex-parte by the learned trial court, vide order dated 30.11.2015. The learned trial court after framing issues, recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments of their learned counsel, decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 through impugned judgment and decree dated 26.10.2018, which was challenged by the petitioners before the appellate court which was dismissed, vide impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 8.10.2021.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Concurrent findings of courts below have been assailed through the instant civil revision. In the application for condonation of delay, the plea taken by the petitioners is that delay caused because of unintentional mistake of Clerk of LDA counsel who misplaced the file in the office and the client/applicant was under false impression that a civil revision has been filed in time. In this regard, office report annexed with the instant civil revision transpires that the impugned appellate judgment and decree was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 8.10.2021, the number of days consumed between date of decision and filing date in this Court are 358, time consumed for preparation of copy is of 13 days, total days consumed in filing the appeal were 345, the limitation period for filing of a civil revision is 90 days and if these 90 days are subtracted from 345 days, it equals to 255 days i.e. this revision petition is barred by 255 days. It is settled law that in case of condonation, the applicant has to explain each and every day's delay, but in the case in hand, no such explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The legislature in its wisdom has fixed the period of limitation for a particular action. Besides, invoking remedy by some aggrieved person beyond the period of limitation prescribed for redressal of grievance, creates a valuable right in favour of the opposite party, therefore, in such case, delay of each day has to be explained by the defaulting party to the satisfaction of the court, which could not be condoned lightly or as of routine, as such arbitrary exercise of discretion would cause serious prejudice to the opposite party. It is also settled law that limitation is not a mere technicality and where the limitation period has expired, a right accrues in favour of the other side which cannot be brushed aside. Reliance is placed on the case of Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through Manager v. Faisal Jameel Butt and another (2023 CLD 934).

5. In instant case, question of condoning delay is of prime importance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has extensively dealt with the issue of limitation in case titled Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifa Bibi and another (PLD 2010 SC 705) and observed that the law of limitation is a rule of procedure, a branch of adjective law. It controls and regulates the process of litigation and time lines to prosecute a cause, failing which the matter must be closed. The litigant must take legal recourse with due diligence, as the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who seep osier their rights. Consequently, conclusion has been drawn that law of limitation cannot be considered a mere formality, rather required to be dealt with being mandatory in nature. This civil revision ought to be filed within 90 days as per Article 162-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 [The Limitation (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2018] read with Section 115, C.P.C., but it was time barred.

6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that if objections raised by the office were not removed during the period allowed by the office and meanwhile the limitation period expired, the appeal/petition would become barred by time. Reliance is placed on the case of Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 SC 736). Law of limitation has a significant role in the administration of justice and an aggrieved person has to approach the competent forum within the period prescribed in the law and against the adverse order a party could not be allowed to sleep over it for an indefinite period and challenge it at the time of its own choosing rather the aggrieved party is placed under legal obligation to avail its legal remedy against the 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 and unsubstantiated grounds.

7. I am of the considered view that the reason assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay in no way can be termed as sufficient cause. Mere bald assertions are not sufficient to soften the implication of limitation in case of stale claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of WAPDA v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354) has held that: " after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed, the door of justice is closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of any avail unless the delay of each day is properly explained and accounted for."

8. As a sequel of above, no case for condonation of delay is made out in favour of the applicant/petitioners, as such application (C.M. No. 3 of 2022) for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the main Civil Revision is also dismissed being barred by time. MQ/L-1/L Revision dismissed.