2007 PLP 1781 (YLR)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Shortly narrated the facts, leading to the filing of instant civil revision are, that Ahmad Shah and others, plaintiffs filed suit against Provincial Land Commissioner through Chief Land Commissioner/Senior Member Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and others, defendants, claiming a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were owner in possession to the extent of 4/5 shares, in suit-land, having inherited the same from their forefathers and defendants were not justified to deny rights of the plaintiffs and assert their own. It was alleged that entries in the Revenue Record adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, were void, illegal, fictitious and liable to correction. The plaintiffs also prayed for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in the possessery rights of the plaintiffs. A prayer for possession of suit-land was also made, in case the plaintiffs were not found in possession of the same. The grievance of the plaintiffs in nutshell is that ex-ruler of Swat, had forcibly obtained thumb-impression of Muhammad, a brother of the plaintiffs on a stamp paper to deprive the plaintiffs of their entitlement in property in question. The matter was taken to Provincial Land Commissioner, which was decided in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 29-4-1975. However, defendants Nos.3 and 5 in collusion with, the Revenue staff, manipulated to get the entire property in their names to the exclusion of the plaintiffs, which necessitated the filing of suit.

2. The defendants appeared in Court and contested the suit on all grounds, legal as well as factual. Necessary issues, arising out of divergent pleadings of the parties, were framed. The parties were afforded opportunities to adduce evidence in support .of their respective contentions. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, District Buner at Dagger, accepted the claim of the plaintiffs and passed a decree in their favour, vide judgment dated 21-5-2003. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree, which did not succeed. The same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Buner at Dagger, vide judgment dated 6-7-2005.

3. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, have filed instant civil revision to challenge the concurrent finding of facts, recorded by the forums below and it has been contended by Sardar Shaukat Hayat, learned A.A.-G. for the State that judgments and decrees of the forums below are the outcome of misreading and non-reading of material evidence on record and the Courts have acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in them. It was submitted that sufficient evidence, oral as well as documentary, was brought on the file to dislodge claim of the plaintiffs and establish that suit-land was ownership of Provincial Government and decision of Federal Land Commission dated 29-4-1975 was not in respect of suit-land, which has been overlooked and excluded out of consideration without any justifiable reason.

4. Mr. Amjad Ali, Advocate for the respondents, while exercising his right of reply, refuted the arguments advanced from the petitioners' side and supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below whole-heartedly.

5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, with reference to the material on file, I find that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and the same did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, warranting interference of his Court under section 115, C.P.C. The finding of facts arrived concurrently by both the lower Courts is not open to legitimate exception, particularly, when no specific misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out. It is a settled law that the High Court while sitting in revisional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below unless it is established that the judgments of the Courts below were without jurisdiction or the Courts below committed illegality or material irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. Reference can be made to Mst. Kulsoom Bibi's case (2005 SCMR 1135).

6. The civil revision is barred by time. It is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay on the grounds enumerated therein.

7. The law givers had amended section 115, C.P.C. by means of an Act XI of 1992, whereby following amendment was incorporated: "Amendment of section 115, Act V of 1908.

In the said Code, in section 115, in subsection (1) in the proviso for the full-stop at the end a colon shall be substituted and thereafter the following further proviso shall be added namely: Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court."

8. The perusal of the above-amendment contemplates that an application under section 115, C.P.C. shall be made within 90 days of the decision of the subordinate Court. Prior to the above-amendment, no statutory period was prescribed by the law for filing of the 'revisions but the superior Courts had always insisted that ordinarily such proceeding should be instituted within the period of 90 days. It is pertinent to mention here that in the judicial system the law of limitation has got its own significance relating to the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings. The Limitation Act contains in its fold remedial provisions like sections 5, 12 and 14, which empowers the Courts to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case,' provided these provisions have been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application the Court at its own shall not be competent to make applicable the provisions of these sections. In this behalf it is noticed that the under C.P.C. there are various provisions where section 5 of the Limitation Act has expressly been made applicable to condone the delay in filing the .proceedings if sufficient cause exists in favour of the party who seeks the condonation of delay. But this section of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable in accordance to section 29 of the Limitation Act, on the revision under section 115, C.P.C.

9. It is settled principle of law that delay of each day must properly and satisfactorily be explained and this is no ground that matter was delayed because it had to pass through the hands of different officials, due to which sufficient time was consumed. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid ground is not a valid ground for extension of period of limitation, and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The civil revision deserves dismissal on this score alone. It is also settled principle of law that the Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as limitation is concerned, the government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its sources are much larger than those possessed by the ordinary litigants. "Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others (1970 SCMR 558), Government of Balochistan v. Muhammad Ibrahim (2000 SCMR 1028), Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Abdul Malik (1994 SCMR 833), The Deputy Director Food v. Syed Safdar, Hussain (1979 SCMR 45) and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang M. Dastur and others (1979 SCMR 191).

10. In view of what has gone above, it follows that both the Courts below have given exhaustive judgments after due appraisal of evidence on the file and after discussing all the prons and cons of the case. There appears to be no legal defect in their judgments, which are in consonance with the evidence on the file. Judgments of the Courts below are neither tainted with any illegality or irregularity nor are fanciful or arbitrary, thus for the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for by this Court. The civil revision is bereft of merit. The same is dismissed on merits as well as found barred by time. The parties are left to bear heir own costs. H.B.T./77/P Revision dismissed.