2004 PLP 10 (YLR)

Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286 ref. (b) Limitation‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Condonation of delay ‑‑‑Principles‑‑ Equality of litigants‑‑‑When the matter would come before the Court, the Court was obliged to decide and dispose it of in accordance with law irrespective of the standards and status of the parties before it‑‑‑Equality of all before the Courts of law in the litigation, was the hallmark of administration and dispensation of justice, which could not be sacrificed at agcy cost‑‑ Government was not entitled to any preferential' treatment in the matter of condonation of delay because with the expiry of period of limitation, valuable rights would accrue to and vest in other side and such a party could not be denuded of the same, unless delay was condoned for good reasons‑‑‑Laxity and lack of proper prosecution by a party, could not be condoned by the Court‑‑‑Government and the officials concerned were duty bound to take proper steps for defending and prosecuting the cases before the Courts with due care and diligence. Riaz Ahmed Lone for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2002. This civil revision is barred by time and is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. No. 1 of 2002) for condoning the delay. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali sought to be challenged through, this revision petition, was rendered by him on 16‑6‑2001. Copy whereof was applied for on 22‑1‑2002 and was received on 26‑1‑2002. The present petition was filed before this Court on 4‑2‑2002. Limitation for filing of revision petition before this Court prescribed by proviso to section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is 90 days. It is evident from the record that copy of the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court was applied for much after the expiry of 90 days i.e. the period available for filing of the revision petition. It has recently been ruled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286 that since section 115, C.P.C. prescribes its own period of limitation, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed unless made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay, thus, is of no avail to the petitioner. I am constrained to observe that in number of cases where the Government or any of its department is party, defence/ prosecution. When the matter comes before the Court, the Court is obliged to decide and dispose it of in accordance with law irrespective of the standings and status of the parties before it. Equality of all before the Courts of law in the litigation is the hallmark of administration and dispensation of justice, which cannot be at any case sacrificed. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment in the matter of condonation of delay. The reason being that with the expiry, of period of limitation valuable rights accrue and vest in the other side and such a party cannot be denuded of the same, unless delay is condoned for goon reasons. Laxity and lack of proper prosecution by a party cannot be condoned by the Court. It is however, for the Government and the officials concerned to take proper steps for defending and prosecuting the causes before the Courts with due care and diligence. The revision petition is barred by time, which is dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order may be sent to the Advocate General, Punjab for such measures as may be considered appropriate by the Government. H.B.T./P‑166/L Petition dismissed.