HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.---The revision petition in hand was filed questioning the judgments and decrees passed by learned Civil - Judge-IV Abbottabad on 14-10-2000 and Additional District Judge, Abbottabad on 22-7-2003, respectively. The learned trial Court partially decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding the property mentioned in the heading of the plaint. While deciding two appeals arising out of the said judgment and decree, as filed by both the parties, the learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of petitioners through a single judgment.
2. In the revision petition in hand preadmission notice was ordered to be given to the respondents on 14-2-2005. Learned counsel appearing for respondents on 15-5-2006 raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition in hand being barred by time. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioners requested for time to prepare the brief in order to counter the said preliminary objection. Similarly, request for time was made at further two occasions. The matter was finally argued today, on behalf of both the parties, in respect of the preliminary objection.
3. The perusal of record reveals that the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Court was passed on 22-7-2003.
The certified copies of the judgment and decree sheet, as attached with the petition, were applied for on 26-7-2003. The said copies were made available to the petitioners on 19-8-2003 whereas the petition in hand was filed on 3-1-2004. It could thus be seen that the petition was filed with an apparent delay of 45/46 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the time consumed in obtaining the certified copies of the record pertaining to the file of learned trial Court may also be considered and the same shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the petition in hand. This submission of learned counsel would have no force as in the ordinary course the copies of the judgment and decree by the trial Court are obtained much before the decision of the appeal.
Besides, in the circumstances of the case, it is the date of judgment and decree of the appellate Court which operates as a starter for period of limitation for filing of revision petition before this Court. The said period, therefore, is to be computed keeping in view the dates of application, preparation and issuance of the certified copies by the appellate Court. In the present case even if the time is calculated, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the date of obtaining copies of trial Court record, the revision petition in hand becomes barred by 11 days.
5. The period of limitation has been provided in-built by section 115, C. P . C. Therefore, the provisions regarding the condemnation of delay, as provided in law of limitation, would not attract to the matter. Besides, the revision of concurrent findings recorded by two Courts also demands prompt action on the part of the party preferring the petition for the purpose. The Petitioner in the instant case have manifestly remained indolent in approaching this court in provisional jurisdiction .
6. The revision petition in hand being barred by considerable time is dismissed in limine.