2002 PLP 918 (CLC)

(1) Whether the defendant maliciously prosecuted the plaintiffs of each suit? OPP (2) If Issue No. l is proved, what should be quantum of damages? OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is minor and is not competent to institute this suit? OPD (4) Relief.

4. In support of his stand the plaintiff/respondent examined Maqsood Ahmed P.W.1, Muhammad Ramzan P.W.2 and examined Muhammad Riaz as P.W.3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent closed his affirmative evidence on 31‑1‑1996. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for evidence of the defendant/petitioner. From 31‑1‑1996 till 24‑3‑1998, the defendant/petitioner was granted innumerable opportunities to produce evidence. However as he failed to produce evidence, so the same was closed and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24-3-1998. The defendant/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, dated 24-3-1998 and filed appeal on 3-6-2000. The learned Appellate Court found that the appeal was patently barred by limitation, as such dismissed the same vide consolidated judgment dated 19-8-2000. The defendant/petitioners has felt aggrieved of the said judgments and decrees and filed the instant civil revision.

5. Alongwith this revision petition, Civil Revisions Nos.586/D of 2000 and 587‑D of 2000 have also been filed which also arise out of the same facts.

6. As all the three appeals have been disposed of through a consolidated judgment of the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur so the instant civil revision alongwith Civil Revisions Nos.586/D of 2000 and 587/5 of 2000 are being disposed of by this single judgment.

7. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.

8. Stand of the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner is that the very suit was not maintainable, that the defendant/petitioner came to know about the decision of the trial Court on 20‑5‑2000 when he was arrested as a result of execution petition filed against him by the decree- holder/plaintiff/respondent. He thus submits that the Appellate Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeals and should have granted one last opportunity to the defendant/petitioner to adduce evidence in the trial Court so the matter would have been disposed of on merits.

9. The only point which requires determination, is if the appeals filed by the present defendant/petitioner on 3‑6‑2000 could be considered to have been filed within the period of limitation prescribed for said purpose and condonation of delay in filing the said appeals could be granted to him. A perusal of record reveals that on the day when the suit was decreed, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner was very much present in the Court. This being the factual position, the question of knowledge of the defendant/petitioner, of the decree assailed through these civil revisions, on 20‑5‑2000, does not arise. The suit was filed on 1‑2‑1995, it remained pending in the Court till 24‑3‑1998 and during all this period learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner had been attending the Court almost on each date of hearing. The defendant/petitioner was granted a period of two years and about 2 months for producing evidence and as he failed to produce any evidence in spite of innumerable opportunities granted to him, so the trial Court was not left with any alternative but to close his evidence arid decide the suit on the basis of evidence of the plaintiff/respondent. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit on 24‑3‑1998, which judgment and decree was assailed by the defendant/petitioner after the expiry of about two years. Delay of each and every day is to be explained while seeking condonation of delay in filing a time‑barred appeal or revision as the cage may be. The record shows that the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner was present in the Court when the original decree, dated 24‑3‑1998 was passed. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to how the defendant/petitioner remained oblivious of the judgment and decree, dated 24‑3‑1998 which was passed in the presence of his learned counsel:

10. The point agitated by the learned counsel at the bar have already been taken into consideration by the Appellate Court while passing impugned consolidated judgment and decree, dated 19.82000. There is no force in the civil revisions and the same are dismissed in limine. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./K‑98/L Revisions dismissed.