JUDGMENT .
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order dated 24.9.2003 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Revision Application No. 218 of 2003 filed by petitioners was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief giving, rise to the filing of instant petition are that respondent Sharif Ahmed .Sub- Inspector of Sindh Police was sent on deputation to Federal Investigating Agency till 20.9.1979 from where he was repatriated and retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 5.2.1983. Since he did not succeed in getting his G.P. Fund from petitioner No. 1 Accountant General of Sindh for about ten years, as such, he invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh by filing'ConstitutionPetition No. D-2841 of 1993 which was allowed and petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay G.P. Fund within thirty days which was accordingly paid.
3. Respondent, however, feeling still not satisfied, filed suit for damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00, 000/- on 1.12.1994 against petitioners which was decreed vide judgment dated 13.1.2.2000 by learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South. Petitioners preferred appeal against the said judgment which 'was dismissed as time-barred vide order dated 6.8.2002 by 3rd Additional District Judge, Karachi (South)/ The said order was challenged in revision application before the learned High Court of Sindh which too was dismissed vide the impugned order.
4. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned ASC for the petitioners and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that respondent in fact had received the entire claim of his G.P. Fund, as such, was not justified to i.e suit for compensation. According to him, the learned Appellate Court, as, well as the learned Revisional Court had erred in appreciating the explanation furnished for condoning the delay of ten months in filing of appeal but non-suited petitioners only on technical ground.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioners on the face of it was barred by ten months and was thus rightly dismissed on that ground. Finding no justifiable reason, the learned High Court also rightly maintained the decision of the Appellate Court.
7. Thus, there being concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below on the above aspect, we do not find any justification to interfere with the same,?
8. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is . Dismissed and leave to appeal refused.