1990 PLP 1186 (CLC)

(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring the present suit? (3) Whether the defendant entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 9‑7‑1978? (4) Whether the Iqrar Nama dated 9‑7‑1978 has been validly executed? (5) Whether the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.20,000 to the defendant ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for? (7) Relief. After recording such evidence as was produced by the parties in support of their respective pleadings, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit vide his judgment dated 22‑5‑1988.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Mansehra but his efforts in this behalf also proved abrotive, inasmuch as the appeal was dismissed vide the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge dated 28‑3‑1989..Hence this revision petition. 4. 1 have heard Qazi Muhammad Ilyas Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the record placed alongwith the petition.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the learned Courts below erroneously relied on the documents which were not legally proved in that only one marginal witness thereof was examined. He also contended that he was given no opportunity to cross‑examine the Hand‑writing Expert. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgments of the learned lower Courts are liable to be set aside.

6. I have given my serious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel in support of his plea.

7. While going through the petition and the documents annexed therewith, I found that neither the one which he wanted to refer for want of proof nor the statement of the Expert which he complains of, having not been permitted to cross‑examine him, are placed on the file. Again, having perused the impugned judgments of both the learned lower Courts, I note that their concurrent findings on question of facts are founded on well reasoned grounds. Nor the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the same hardly need any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Otherwise too, although the Limitation Act of 1908 does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing the petition of revision, yet this petition has been filed almost a year after the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, which rather crossed the limits of reasonability of time factor that a litigant, as a man of ordinary prudence, can be expected to take while calling a judgment into question; and as such cannot be countenanced with impunity and unless the delay is adequately explained, the Court shall be reluctant to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The instant revision petition appears to be the classic example of such a case.

9. For the foregoing reasons and finding this revision petition devoid of any merits, I hereby dismiss the same in limine. C.M.No. 38/90 also stands disposed of. H.B.T./994/P Revision Petition dismissed.