1988 PLP 65 (CLC)

Sikandar Khan for Appellant. M. Zafar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1987. Brief facts leading to this Petition are that on 6‑12‑1982, petitioners filed a civil suit, styling it for declaration and permanent injunction, praying for permanently restraining the respondents from interfering in his portion of Shamilat land. Respondents filed written statement on 6‑1‑1983 vehemently repudiating claim in suit. It was asserted that boundaries of land in dispute are unspecified besides it was pleaded, that Shamilat lands do not identify or recognize, specified individual holding. However, suit was ultimately dismissed by learned Qazi Muslim Bagh vide judgment dated 26‑4‑1984 on account of petitioners failure to produce evidence to substantiate his claim, despite several opportunities. Operative portion of said judgment is reproduced below: ‑

2. After lapse of about twenty‑eight months a time‑barred appeal No.51 of 1986 was filed by petitioners before Majlis‑i‑Shoora, Loralai on 10‑8‑1986, challenging judgment and decree dated 26‑4‑1984 passed by trial Court which was however, dismissed by said Court on' the point of limitation through judgment and decree dated 5‑2‑1987.

3. Present petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 26‑4‑1987 and 5‑2‑1987 passed by Qazi Muslim Bagh and Majlis‑i‑Shoora, Loralai respectively.

4. Malik Sikandar Khan, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently urged that petitioner was not aware of judgment, passed by trial Court because petitioners were mislead by verbal observations of trial Court suggesting to persue criminal proceedings first. He therefore pleaded that appeal should be deemed to be within time from the date of knowledge. He further submitted that trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by petitioner was not competent to pass any order of prohibition against petitioner, thus according to him observation of trial Court to that extent are totally devoid of lawful authority and of no legal effect.

5. Whereas Mr. Muhammad Zafar learned counsel for respondent emphatically contended that Appeal No. 51 of 1986 was undisputedly barred by time, and no cogent reasons exist, justifying condonation of such an inordinate delay. Thus there being no illegality in the judgment passed by Majlis‑i‑Shoora, Revision Petition is not maintainable. So far objection concerning prohibitory portion of order passed by trial Court, learned counsel for respondent attempted to argue that petitioner ought to have challenged the same within specified period, prescribed by law, and no interference can be sought after said judgment has attained finality.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties. Evidently suit for declaration and injunction filed by petitioners was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26‑4‑1984, on account of their failure to produce evidence despite several opportunities. However, it may be seen that while dismissing the suit, trial Court also made following observation:‑ The apprehension of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent taking advantage of these observations which are also incorporated in the decree, is threatening to execute the same. There is no doubt that trial Court while dismissing the suit merely on the failure of petitioner to produce evidence could not lawfully pass any prohibitory order. Thus aforementioned portion of judgment has neither any legal, sanction nor same is at all executable. In the circumstances; apprehension of petitioner is not well conceived at this stage. It is, an admitted feature that Appeal No.51 was filed by petitioner before Majlis‑i‑Shoora, Loralai on 10‑8‑1986 about 28 months after prescribed period therefore, same was undisputedly hopelessly barred by time as rightly observed by Majlis‑i‑Shoora. Explanation attempted to be given for seeking condonation of such an inordinate delay is clearly unreasonable and unjustified. Thus, there is absolutely no error, illegality or impropriety in the conclusion arrived at by appellate Court in this behalf. Revisional jurisdiction, obviously cannot be invoked merely on procedural defects or technical defects, for I interfering with order, which otherwise is proper, legal and justified, as such present petition is not maintainable. For the foregoing reasons and subject to observations in respect of judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petition is directed to be dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. /297/Q Revision dismissed.