2005 PLP 307 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑‑Suit for declaration was concurrently dismissed‑‑‑Revision was filed after a delay of about two years and eight months‑‑‑Application for condonation of delay was filed without the averment that copying agency had not informed the petitioner and copies were obtained on 1‑1‑2004‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Delay of two years and eight months showed the indifferent attitude of the petitioner who had not cared to approach the Copying Agency for such a long period‑‑ Slackness of petitioners did not entitle them to any concession in the form of condonation of delay to be extended to them in the period of limitation‑‑‑Civil Revision was dismissed in limine in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Kamboh for Petitioners. Gulzar Ahmad had filed a suit to seek declaration regarding his alleged ownership and possession, with regard to the lands mentioned in the head note of the plaint, by praying that Mutation No.881 sanctioned A on 10‑9‑1960 be declared fake, fictitious, the result of conspiracy and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners. The suit was contested by filing the written statement from the defendant. Issues were framed and parties had produced their evidence. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 4‑10‑2000 after perusal of evidence and hearing of the arguments. Aggrieved from that judgment, the legal representatives of Gulzar Ahmad, deceased/plaintiff, had filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who initially entertained it but after hearing the parties the appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 2‑5‑2001. Hence, this civil revision.

2. The impugned judgment and decree in the instant case was passed by learned Additional District Judge on 2‑5‑2001, whereas this civil revision has been filed on 6‑1‑2004 after an inordinate delay of about two years and eight months. To get the condonation of delay, an application bearing C.M. No.2 of 2004 has also been filed by the petitioners. But it is an admitted position that the application for obtaining the certified copies of judgment and decree was filed on .16‑5‑2001, whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the copies were ready for delivery on 19‑7‑2001 yet these were not obtained by the petitioners uptill 1‑1‑2004. To explain this delay, the learned counsel has argued that no date was intimated by the Copying, Agency, therefore, copy was not obtained. To support his contention, he has referred to Shamim Akhtar v. Munawar Din and others PLD 1993 Lah. 559 and Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Idrees and 2 others 1998 CLC 1123.

3. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel and the perusal of the record, I have come to the following decision:‑‑

4. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time has not contained the version as has been stated and adopted by the learned counsel at this stage. In the application, no where it has been entered that no date was intimated by the Copying Agency to the petitioners, so he could not approach the Copying Agency earlier to the date when the copy was delivered, or the Copying Agency had shown its inability to deliver the copy of the impugned judgment and decree. The delay of about two years and eight months shows the indifferent attitude of the petitioners toward the case. It has manifested the grave kind of negligence on the part of petitioners who had not cared to approach the Copying Agency for so much long a period. So, the delay cannot be condoned, as it has displayed not only the indolent attitude of the petitioners yet the interest, which no prudent man can be presumed to have adopted in such circumstances. The Copying Agency having prepared certified copies on 19‑7‑2001 cannot be presumed to have kept it with itself and was not prepared to deliver the copy to the petitioners. The slackness of the petitioners does not entitle any concession in the form of condonation of delay to be extended to them in the period of limitation. So the civil revision is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. M.I./G‑86/L Revision dismissed