2009 PLP 1846 (YLR)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

By this common judgment I intend to dispose of two Civil Revision Applications being No.36/2007, re; Khalil-u-Rehman v. Mst. Hashiman and others and 37/2007 re: Kaleem-u-Rehman and others v. Mst. Hashiman and others, as both the said civil revision applications arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 7-8-2007 passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge, Shandakot in Civil Appeal No.110/2003 re: Mst. Hashiman v. Khalil-u-Rehman and Others and Civil Appeal No.111/2003, re: Mst. Hashiman and another v. Kaleem-u-Rehman and others, whereby the case was remanded to the learned trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Hashiman filed F.C. Suit No.49/2001 re: Mst. Hashiman v. Khalil-u-Rehman and others, before the learned Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he denied the allegations and claims of the plaintiffs.

3. Subsequently, defendant Kaleem-u-Rehman and others also filed counter suit being F.C. Suit No.07/2002; re: Kaleem-u-Rehman and others v. Mst. Hashiman and others, for declaration and permanent injunction, in the learned Court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Larkana.

4. Record reflects that both the above suits were consolidated, and in view of the divergent pleadings, the learned trial Court framed seven consolidated issues.

5. After parties adduced their evidence, the learned trial Court i.e. the Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, vide common judgment and decree dated 30-6-2003, dismissed the F.C. No.49/2001, re: Mst. Hashiman v. Khalil-u-Rehman and others and decreed F.C. Suit No.07/2002, re: Kaleem-u-Rehman and others v. Mst. Hashiman and others as prayed. Being dis satisfied with the said judgment and decree, Mst. Hashiman and Muhammad Azeem filed two appeals being Civil Appeal No.110/2003, re: Mst. Hashiman v. Khalil u-Rehman and others and Civil Appeal No.111/2003, re: Mst. Hashiman and another v. Kaleem-u-Rehman and others before the learned Court of District Judge, Larkana, which were ultimately disposed of by the learned Court of Additional District Judge. Shandadkot, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7-8-2007, whereby the learned appellate Court remanded the case to the learned trial Court with the directions to frame the following additional issues and proceed with the matter in accordance with law after providing ample opportunities to the parties to prove their case as per their pleadings and respective claims. Additional Issues: (1) Whether the record of rights in the name of father of respondent No.1 namely Habib-u-Rehman was cancelled in the year 1973 and the said order was not challenged before any competent forum? (2) Whether the entry in record of rights dated 18-8-1973 in the name of claimant Abdul Qudoos on the basis of allotment of year, 1962 is illegal, void and not confer any right? (3) Whether S. No.321 was allotted to the claimant Sardar Ali instead of S. No.221 and the respondents manipulated and fabricated the S. No.221 in record of rights in place of S. No.321 by playing fraud?

6. The applicants being aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree dated 7-8-2007, have filed both the above time barred civil revision application on 22-11-2007.

7. Along with the civil Revision Applications the applicants have also filed two separate applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing the civil revision applications.

8. By virtue of proviso added by Act-VI of 1992 in section 115, C.P.C. the Revision Application is to be filed within 90-days of the decision of the subordinate Court. Perusal of certified true copies of the impugned judgment and decree, filed by the applicants in both the Civil Revision Applications reveal that the said judgment and decree was passed on 7-8-2007 copies were applied for by the applicants on 10-9-2007 and costs was paid on 10-9-2007, i.e. after 33 days of the judgment and decree and copies were made ready on 13-9-2007 and delivered on 13-9-2007 within three days of the application and these civil revision applications were filed on 22-11-2007 after 105 days of the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-8-2008 of the appellate Court and 69 days of delivery of the copies of the said judgment and decree dated 7-8-2008, which shows lack of interest on the part of the applicants in filing the civil Revision Applications within time.

9. Furthermore it is well settled law that delay of each and every day is to be explained with jurisdiction to make out the case for condonation of delay. The applicants have failed to explain the delay in filing the civil Revision Applications. Even otherwise no exception can be taken to the decision of the learned Appellate Court remanding the case to the learned Trial Court by proposing the above additional issues with the directions to provide ample opportunities to the parties to prove their case.

10. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the considered opinion that there is no substance in applications under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 and the same are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the civil revision applications are dismissed as time barred. The parties shall bear their own costs.

11. These are the reasons of the short order dated 2-4-2009, whereby the civil revision applications were dismissed as time barred. H.B. T. /K-14/K Application dismissed.