' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant civil revision assailed the judgments/decrees, dated 27-9-2003 and 31-3-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge and by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore, whereby suit of the respondent No.1 was decreed and appeal of the petitioners, thereagainst, was dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly relevant facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit forpermanent injunction against the petitioners and respondent No.2 praying that they may be permanently restrained from interfering in his possession over the plot No.147 Nishtar Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore where he has constructed a hotel, latrine and other structure earlier to the residential scheme of the petitioner. It was further pleaded that after promulgation of Allama Iqbal Town, a residential housing scheme by the petitioner, respondent No.1 submitted numerous applications for transfer of disputed property in his favour but the concerned official, out of malice did not decide the application. It was prayed that the petitioner had no right to interfere in his possession over plot in question, which, according to him, could not be put to auction without deciding his applications.
3. Petitioners being defendants in the suit contested it, by filingtheir written statement wherein they raised certain preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action in respondent No.1 's suit being mala fide and that form of the suit was not correct. Controversial pleadings ofthe parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful decreed the suit of respondent No.1 vide his judgment and decree, dated 27-9-2003.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision, dated 27-9-2003 filed a time barred appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed vide appellate judgment dated 31-3-2004, being barred by limitation. Petitioner thereafter, filed the instant revision petition again beyond the period of limitation wherein the respondents appeared in response to notice by this Court, Respondent No.1 was represented through his counsel.
5. Heard. Record perused. Besides the fact that delay in filing the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court could not be condoned solely on the ground that the petitioners were State functionaries and they needed some time in soliciting the permission for filing appeal in view of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Secretary, Pakistan Railways, Ministry of Railways. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Sharif Javaid Waris (PLD 2003 SC 6), each day's delay in filing the appeal before the learned first Appellate Court was not explained by the petitioner in their application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908.
Reference in this behalf can be made to judgment in the case of Sheikh Muhammad Saleem v. Faiz Ahmad (PLD 2003 SC 628).
6. Petitioners after having lost their appeal being barred by limitation again filed this revision petition with an inordinate unexplained delay. Their appeal was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 31-3-2004 and they applied for certified copies on 12-6-2004 which were ready for delivery on 21-7-2004, and were handed over to the petitioner on 27-7-2004 in this manner, the petitioners could file this revision petition till 9-8-2004 but the same was filed on 30-8-2004 which was barred by limitation by 21 days as limitation provided by section 115, C.P.C. Was 90 days.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to explain the delay in filing the revision petition by urging that on account of summer holidays, the same could not be filed as the office of this Court remained closed yet his stance is not correct because the office of this Court remained open during the summer vacations. The stance of the petitioner stood negated by the fact that revision petition was filed during the summer vacation i,e, on 30-8-2004. Above all the delay in filing the civil revision cannot be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, time having been prescribed by a special statute i,e, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in view of provisions of section 29(2) of the earlier mentioned Act. Reference in this behalf cannot be made to the judgment in case of Said Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCM R 286),Muhammad v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others (2001 M LD 1546), Sultan Khan and 3 others v. Sultan Khan (2004 M LD 918) and Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others v.
Masood Enterprises (PLJ 2001 Lahore 944).
7. For the reasons noted above, appellate Court correctly non-suited the petitioner on the point of limitation and instant revision petition having been filed beyond time prescribed by law, is not maintainable, hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.