2005 PLP 1144 (MLD)

(i) The petitioner tiled the suit for possession along with permanent injunction against respondents Nos.3 and 4 on 10‑11‑1999 before Civil Judge, Pindi Bhattian; (ii) That the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 6‑11‑2002 with the following conditions:‑‑ "Moreover the plaintiff is directed to furnish court‑fee worth of Rs.3750 within 30 days otherwise the suit shall be dismissed U/O 7, rule 11, C.P.C." (iii) The petitioner filed execution petition against the respondents without complying with the aforesaid condition, on 18‑1‑2003; (iv) The petitioner filed application for extension of time to deposit the deficient court‑fee on 21‑9‑2004 in terms of judgment and decree dated 6‑11‑2002 before the‑trial Court; (v) The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 18‑10‑2004; (vi) The petitioner filed revision petition before the Addl. District Judge concerned, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 21‑2‑2005. In case, the aforesaid facts are put in a juxta‑position then the petitioner has filed application for extension of time after a considerable delay of about two years. Both the Courts below refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the trial Court has finally decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 6‑11‑2002; therefore, trial Court was justified to dismiss the application on the well‑known principle that the Court has become functus officio, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments: ‑‑ "Syed Ayezuddin's case" (PLD 1956 Dacca 280) "Shah Wali's case (PLD 1966 SC 983) It is also admitted fact that by efflux of time the vested right has accrued to the respondents on account of the inaction of the petitioner not to deposit the court fee in terms of the judgment and decree dated 6‑11‑2002. Meaning thereby the matter is not confined solely between the subject and the State because in the circumstances a third person i.e., respondent has also in meantime due to, running out of period of limitation in his favour, acquired the vested right; therefore, it is the duty and obligation of the Court to grant time with cogent reasons and Court is not bound to oblige to grant time nor it is to be granted just in routine or mechanically. The revisional Court has not exercised discretion in favour of the petitioner on account of the conduct of the petitioner as the petitioner has filed application after a considerable delay without mentioning any sufficient cause, which is in consonance the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muhammad Nawaz's case" (1995 SCMR 105). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Superior Court in the following judgments: ‑‑ Wali Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others (PLD 1974 SC 106). G.M. Malik, Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad v. Province of Punjab and 2 others (1990 CLC 1783) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236) In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1039/L Petition dismissed.