2005 PLP 1428 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

This petition is directed against an order, dated 16-4-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1620 of 1995 filed in Civil Revision No.1517-D of 1980.

2. The heirs of one Muhammad Akbar had filed a suit in the Court of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Rawalpindi against one Farzand Ali and others praying for a decree of possession in respect of the suit land. It may be mentioned here that it was Farzand Ali who had allegedly sold the suit land to the purchasers-defendants in his alleged capacity as the attorney of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Muhammad Akbar. The said suit was decreed ex parte through a judgment, dated 25-6-1979. None of the affected judgment-debtors/ purchasers questioned the said judgment and decree before any higher forum and it was only the heirs of the above mentioned attorney namely Farzand Ali who impugned the said judgment and decree through an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed on 9-9-1980. A revision petition bearing Civil Revision No.1517-D of 1980 was filed in the Lahore High Court but the petitioners this time were, one son of the above mentioned Farzand Ali and two others namely Fazal Karim and Abdul Qayyum. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not identify the latter two petitioners vis-a-vis the proceedings before the trial Court as also before the Appellate Court.

3. This petition was dismissed by learned High Court on 21-9-1980 whereafter silence prevailed in all quarters till an application was filed in the Lahore High Court on 20-2-1995 under section 12(2), C.P.C. on 20-9-1995 (sic) questioning the above mentioned revisional order passed by the leaned High Court more than fourteen years ago i.e. on 21-9-1980. This application bearing C.M. No.1620 of 1995 was filed by the heirs of Ghulam Ali defendant who had neither filed the appeal before the District Judge nor had they filed any revision in the High Court and had woken up for the first time in the year 1995. This petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, through an order dated 16-4-2002 which is being impugned through this petition before us.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the available ,record in the light of the submissions made by them.

5. In dismissing the said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. the learned Judge in Chamber had been mainly influenced by the fact that the same was hopelessly barred by time as the law prescribed a period of three years for filing of such an application whereas the said application had been filed after more than 14 years of the passing of the revisional order in question. The learned High Court had also observed that the said application was not accompanied by any application either under section 5 or even under section 14 of the Limitation Act offering grounds and thereafter seeking condonation of delay.

6. Learned counsel has, however, referred us to para.26 of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. to submit that such a prayer had been made in the body of the main petition itself. The said paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-- "That the petitioners had been pursuing the matter in a bona fide manner before appropriate forums, hence there is no delay in filing this petition before this Honourable Court. However, in case this Honourable Court finds any delay, in lodging of this C.M. in Civil Revision No.1517-D of 1980, the delay in its filing may graciously be condoned in the interest of justice. Affidavit of the attorney of the petitioners is enclosed."

7. A bare perusal of this paragraph is sufficient to conclude that the same hardly qualified as an application seeking condonation of delay but even if it be presumed for the benefit of the petitioners that the same did amount to such an application then the fact remains that no details were mentioned in the said paragraph justifying condonation of each day of the delay of more than 4 years which had occurred in the matter. This being so no exception could be taken to the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that the application in question was hopelessly barred by time.

8. Learned Advocate Supreme Court could also not indicate any material to justify the commission of any fraud or any collusion or misrepresentation which had led to the passing of the revisional judgment in question of the Lahore High Court and which could, in turn, justify acceptance of an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.

9. In this view of the matter, this petition is without merit which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A-154/S Leave refused. ***