1996 PLP 720 (CLC)

The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through superior right of pre‑emption. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20‑6‑1990. It was held that the petitioner did not have right of pre‑emption at the time of sale. The petitioner did not challenge this judgment and decree but subsequently moved an application under section 36 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Ordinance (38 of 1990). This application was also dismissed vide order dated 2‑2‑1991. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree dated 20‑6‑1990 and order dated 2‑2‑1991 through an appeal/revision before the learned District Judge, Sialkot. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the arguments proceeded to dismiss the appeal/revision vide order dated 11‑4‑1993. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the revision petition argued that the judgment and decree of the trial Court it illegal and the Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it while the learned Appellate Court wrongly dismissed the appeal/revision as barred by time in respect of the judgment and decree dated 20‑6‑1990. The arguments were concluded with the submission that the petitioner had moved an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act for the extension of the time but the same has not been disposed of by the learned Appellate Court.

3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show anything from the record to support his argument that the petitioner had moved an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner should have placed on record certified or uncertified copy of the same. It is maintained by the petitioner in para. 4 of this revision petition that the appeal was within time. This cuts at very root of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner was under legal obligation to explain each day's delay in this revision petition in order to succeed but neither the petitioner has appended the alleged application for condonation of delay nor the application under section 36 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Ordinance, 1990 nor given the date when it was filed. Therefore, there is nothing on record to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner then vehemently argued that since the decree was void, therefore, no limitation is involved. The argument is utterly misconceived. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was not void. The trial Court at the best failed. to exercise jurisdiction, therefore, it has to be challenged and got set aside in accordance with law. The same could not be simply ignored. This is not all. The petitioner was ill‑advised to file composite appeal/revision before the District Judge. If the same was treated as a revision petition, then the second revision is clearly barred under section 115(3), C.P.C. This also goes a long way to show how carelessly and indifferently the petitioner prosecuted his cause. The learned Courts below have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them. There is nothing for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

5. The result is that there is no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed in limine H.B.T./M‑2101/L Revision dismissed.