P L D 1982 Lahore 287 (PLP)

This review petition has been filed on behalf of the Forest Department under Order XLVII, rule I, C. P. C. against the judgment dated 24th of November, 1981, passed by me in Writ Petition No. 1226‑R of 1969. The review petition is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condoning the delay in filing the review petition, which is barred by thirty‑one days.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of review petition may be briefly stated. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition challenging the order, dated 25‑10‑1969 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) by means of Writ Petition No. 1226‑R of 1969, which was admitted to a full hearing on 10‑12‑1969. The Forest Department, through Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Forest Division, Gujranwala, was impleaded as respondent No.

2. Intimations were sent by the Office of this Court from time to time to respondent No. 2 and a copy of the writ petition and other annexures were also supplied to him as is apparent from the record of this Court which has been perused by me with the assistance of the learned Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Tanweer Ahmad Khan.

3. It may be further pointed out that the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat, East Division, vide his Memorandum No. 129/NS, dated 29‑7‑1970, requested the Superintendent Judicial, High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, for the supply of the copies of the writ petition and other documents. In consequence, the Superintendent Writ Branch, duly informed the Divisional Forest officer, vide memorandum No. 22833/Judl. dated 13‑3‑1971, that a copy of the Writ Petition had already been supplied to the Department.

4. The matter is pending in this Court since 1969 and notwithstanding the fact that the Department is fully aware of the pendency of the proceedings in this writ petition no one ever‑turned up on behalf of the Forest Department to pursue the case. However, by .way of abundant caution, by my order dated '_5‑6‑1981,1 directed the office: to relist the case for hearing after due intimation is given to all the parties. In consequence, notice was sent to Forest Department, which was duly acknowledged by one Muhammad Iqbal, the concerned clerk of the Department on 7‑7‑1981. The copy of the notice is on the record and the same has been perused by the learned Assistant ate‑General.

5. The main contention of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General in support of the application for condonation of delay is that the proper party in this case was the Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot, and not the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala, and that the Department came to know about the order under review only a fortnight ago from the date of filing the petition dated 23‑1‑1982. An affidavit has been filed by Safdar Khan, Superviser of the Divisional Forest Officer's Office, Sialkot, who is also present in Court today, alongwith the departmental record, in support of the application for condonation of delay. The affidavit does not disclose as on what date the department came to know of the order under review. It is, however, stated in the affidavit that the department never received any notice of the date of hearing. .6. The contention of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the concerned official in this case was the Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot, and not the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala, and, therefore, the notice sent by this Court to the Forest Department through the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala, was defective and thus there was no proper service in the eye of law is ex facie untenable. This point has not been taken either in the application for condonation of delay, nor does it find mention in the application for review. The respondent applicant is, therefore, precluded to raise this point. The record of the Forest Department, however, shows that the respondent No. 2 had full knowledge of the pendency of the pro ceedings in this Court. The intimation of the judgment delivered by this Court on 24‑11‑1981 was duly conveyed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Forest Division, Gujranwala, by the High Court vide memo randum No. 1226/R/69, dated 7‑)2‑1981 and the same was acknowledged by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala, under his signature on 12‑12‑1981 and it was duly diarised in their Register at 349/GDS, on 12‑12‑1981. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has placed on record a photostat copy of this Court's memorandum duly received by the Department which is marked "X". The delay, therefore, is not liable to be condoned for this technical ground which even otherwise is devoid of any force. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay of each day should be satisfactorily explained which the respondent applicant has failed to do so. There is, therefore, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Forest Depart ment showed gross lack of care in pursuing the writ petition in this Court. A party who is guilty of contumacy, positive mala fides or lack of bona fide will not be entitled for any indulgence in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act. Reference may be made to Mst. Walayat Khatoon v. Khalil Khan and another (1). It has been repeatedly pointed out by the superior Courts o1 this country that Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment as compared to ordinary citizens in adjudication of civil matters and where sufficient explanation is not given the application for condonation of delay ought to be dismissed. Reference may be made to the Province of West Pakistan, Lahore v. Mian Noor Ahmad and others (2). (1) P L D 1979 S C 821 (2) 1975 S C M R 91

7. The action of the Forest Department in filing an ex facie false affidavit, in an abortive attempt to seek condonation of delay in a time‑ barred review petition is devoid of all ethical notions and moral obligations. It is expected by the Court that in future the Forest Department of the Government would ‑in each case act honestly and‑ conscientiously and . irrespective of the merits of the individual cases.

8. In any event, it is regretted to point out that the petition filed by the Forest Department for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit i B based on misrepresentation and concealment of facts which tantamounts to practising fraud on this Court. Even on merits of the review application, e the applicant respondent No. 2, is not entitled to any indulgence in exercise of the discretionary relief of this Court, as he has not approached this Court with clean hands.

9. In view of the above, the review petition as well as the application for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed in limine. s, Q, Petition dismissed.