2025 PLP 749 (MLD)

C.M. No. 1 of 2024 and Main Case Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.

Through this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the applicants seek condonation of delay in filing the titled Civil Revision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell against the respondents/defendants which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.2015. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree in which notices were issued. Petitioners and respondents Nos.4 to 7 appeared and filed contesting written reply of the said application while respondent Nos.3 did not appear and he was proceeded against ex-parte on 03.02.2017. The trial court vide order dated 15.09.2018 dismissed the application of respondents Nos.1 and

2. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 challenged the said order through an appeal which was accepted by the appellate court vide judgment dated 04.12.2020 and case was remanded to the trial court to frame issues and then decide the case after hearing the parties. In post remand proceedings, the trial court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the parties vide order dated 13.04.2023 dismissed the application of respondents Nos.1 and 2 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Against the said order, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an appeal which was accepted by the appellate court vide judgment dated 18.05.2024 who by setting aside the order dated 13.04.2023 of the trial court accepted the application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2015 and ex-parte proceedings dated 11.03.2014. Hence, this civil revision.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. As per record, the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib passed the impugned judgment on 18.05.2024 and the petitioners applied for obtaining the certified copy on 21.05.2024 which was prepared on 10.06.2024. The petitioners filed instant civil revision on 07.10.2024 after 122-days of passing of the above dictum whereas Article 162-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 [The Limitation (Punjab Amendment) Act 2018] provides a period of only 90 days for filing of the Civil Revision from the date of decision sought to be revised, as such instant revision petition is barred by limitation by 32 days.

5. The applicants filed civil miscellaneous application [C.M. No.1/2024] under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay on the ground that due to misunderstanding of summer vacations as well as illness of petitioner No.ii and advance age of about 70 years of petitioner No.ii, the civil revision could not be filed within time. The delayed filing the civil revision was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to unavoidable circumstances stated hereinabove, suffice it to say that no record of ailment of petitioner No.ii is appended with the application and mere mentioning of advanced age of the petitioner No.ii is not an excuse. Further, it was obligation of the applicants/petitioners or their counsel to keep themselves abreast of the proceedings but they displayed visible negligence. Thus, the ignorance of office process is not good ground for condonation of delay, as such the delay is not liable to be condoned as after expiry of statutory period of limitation the verdicts in question has attained the status of past and closed transaction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Diamond International Corporation Limited v. State Bank of Pakistan through Senior Deputy Director (2001 SCMR 659). Moreover, after expiry of the period of limitation a valuable right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party which (right) cannot be taken away rather convincing reasons are to be furnished in this regard and the absence whereof disentitled a delinquent litigant from discretionary relief, as such the Civil Revision before this Court is blatantly time barred. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Amir Ullah Jan v. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab and 3 others (PLD 2013 Lahore 445), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:- "It is also clear that the conduct of a party that was so indolent as not to inquire about the fate of its case from its counsel; and after his demise by failing to engage a fresh counsel; and thereafter to delay for two decades the filing of present application for restoration of the petition actually tantamounts to abandonment of the cause. There is no merit for restoration of the writ petition which is apparently a speculative venture that is launched by an attorney who is interested to revive the proceedings in respect of land which is admittedly not in possession of the petitioner and was allowed to be retained by the respondent No.4. At best an interim order was made to prevent further allotment of such land."

6. Furthermore, 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. Reliance is placed on cases cited as Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen (2006 SCMR 631), Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and others (2013 SCMR 587), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi" (2014 SCMR 1594) and Ashiq Hussain Sabri v. Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab and 8 others (PLD 2011 Lahore 490 (D.B).

7. Further, the significance of limitation cannot be mitigated by attributing it mere a technicality rather it frustrates a remedy of an indolent party and also debars the jurisdiction of an adjudicating forum to take cognizance of the matter on merits and law of limitation cannot be bypassed to rescue an indolent person who remained sleeping over the infringement of their rights. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases cited as Ainuddin and others v. Abdullah and another (2019 SCMR 880) and Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 SC 736).

8. As the instant revision petition is blatantly time barred, as such there is no need to decide the issue raised therein on merits. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Din v. Abdul Ghani and another (2012 SCMR 1004)

9. In view of above, no case for condonation of delay is made out in favour of the applicants/petitioners, as such application (C.M.No.1/2024) for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the main Civil Revision is also dismissed being barred by time. SA/M-10/L Revision application dismissed.