' The brief facts out of which present petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession along with permanent injunction against respondent No.3 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pindi Bhattian on 10-11-1999. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Consequently, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6- 11-2002 in the following terms:-- "Moreover, the plaintiff is directed to furnish court-fee worth Rs.3750 within 30 days otherwise the suit shall be dismissed under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. There is no order as to costs."
' The petitioner did not furnish the requisite court-fee amounting to Rs.3,750 in terms of judgment of the learned trial Court dated 6-11-2002. The petitioner filed execution petition on 18-1-2003. The petitioner filed an application for extension of time before the learned trial Court to make up the deficiency of court-fee in terms of judgment and decree dated 6-11-2002. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 18-10-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Pindi Bhattian, who also dismissed the same vide judgment dated 21-2-2005, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate person and his counsel did not inform him about affixing the reuqisite court-fee. The petitioner approached his counsel who filed execution petition instead of filing of the application for extension of time. During the pendency of execution petition, the petitioner has filed an application for extension of time, which was not allowed by the learned trial Court only on the ground that the learned trial Court has become fuctuous officio, which is not correct approach as the learned trial Court has ample powers to extend the time under section 148, C.P.C., therefore, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application without application of time. He further submits that the Revisional Court has also countersigned the same without application of mind. He further submits that the court-fee is to be affixed by the petitioner under section 7 of Court Fee Act, which is discretion in nature in view of Part-I of section II of the.Court Fee Act, 1870, but this fact was not considered by the Court below. He further submits that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit and has only power to reject the plaint under Order 7, rule 11 of C.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order/judgment of both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(I) The petitioner filed 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 SCM R 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.