1. ' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.---By this order, I intended to dispose of above titled Civil Revision application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, dated 28.-5-2007 and Decree prepared on 5-7-2007 in Civil Appeal No,55 of 2006 passed by learned II-Additional District Judge, Karachi South, this Civil - Revision has been filed by the applicant.
2. ' Brief facts of the care are that a suit was filed by Abdul Rasheed son of Abdul Aziz (present Respondent) for declaration and permanent injunction alleging therein that he purchased a plot bearing No,A-55 measuring 240 square yards in Shirin Jinnah colony, Block-1, Clifton Karachi from its original owner namely Muhammad Shamim. However, after purchase the Martial Law Authorities cancelled so many plots including suit plot of Muhammad Shamim original allottee of the plot and published list of particular plots with full details, as such Revenue Record could not be effected and plaintiff was assured of protection of his right. However, inspite of genuine efforts of the plaintiff, documents were not supplied to him, though he is in its possession and raised a construction to some extent. As such he made a representation for regularization of suit plot in his name on payment of costs of land and other charges, but all to no avail. Plaintiff Made Representation on 24-3-1991, to the Chief Minister of Sindh, who directed the Defendant No,1 to allot plot of 240 square yards in Shirin Jinnah Colony in his favour. Even after such directions no action was taken. A fresh application was also submitted with the Minister for Housing and Town Planning and Public Health Department, Government of Sindh, which was ultimately sent to the Defendant No,2, even then matter was delayed in respect of regularization of the plot in his name. The further case of the plaintiff/respondent is that on 4-3-1992, Defendant tried to demolish the existing construction raised by him, but defendant could not succeed, but defendant extended threats that suit plot would be got vacated from the plaintiff. Hence suit was filed with a prayer to declare that plaintiff is entitled for allotment and regularization of suit plot No,A-55, measuring 240 square yards, Shirin Jinnah Colony, Karachi, on payment of costs of the land and other charges on the basis of possession and recommendation of the high-ups and also prayed for a consequential relief of injunction to the extent that the defendant, as well as to his subordinates be restrained from demolishing the existing construction on the suit plot, as well as from allotting and regularization of the plot in the name of some body else. On service of process, defendant/applicant submitted written statement stating therein that a plot in question was cancelled on 4-3-1982 from the name of original allottee Muhammad Shamim son of Haji Muhammad Ali on recommendation of Inquiry Commission under M.L.O. And possession of the plot was riot delivered to any one by the K.D.A.
3. Therefore, question of any construction on it does not arise. Actually summary of the case is to be submitted to the Chief Minister, as certain formalities were required to be completed, Executive Engineer was also directed to furnish a factual position of the plot, as applicant is unauthorized encroacher on the suit-land. Not only this, but a notice was also served upon Muhammad Shamim and publication was also made in Daily newspapers for his appearance, but he did not turn up, as such allotment was cancelled from his name and after cancellation, plot is lying open, free from encroachment, and states that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought by him and suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On pleading of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the premises were ordered to be allotted to be plaintiff by late Chief Minister of Sindh, if so, what is its effect?
(2) Whether similar orders were passed in respect of other allottees for allotment of plots in the same KDA Authorities?
(3) Whether other allottees on the direction of Chief Minister were allotted plots in the same scheme of KDA by the KDA Authorities?
(4) Whether the plaintiff had agreed to pay the price of the said plot?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has been singled out and discriminated in the allotment and lease of the premises?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the allotment of the plot?
(7) Whether the enquiry was conducted by Commissioner under MLO 19 in respect of suit plot and same was cancelled?
(8) What should the Decree be?
4. ' Both the parties led their evidence and suit was dismissed vide judgment, dated 8-4-2006 and Decree prepared on 4-2-2006, whereas, Civil Appeal No,55 of 2006 submitted by the respondent was allowed vide judgment, dated 28-5-2007 and decree prepared on 5-7-2007, by the learned II- Additional District Judge, Karachi South, hence present revision was submitted.
5. ' On perusal of record it reveals that, on 6-6-2008, learned counsel for the respondent raised a legal plea and pointed out that a present revision application is hopelessly time barred. As such it was observed that, first the point of limitation would be argued. However, matter adjourned time to time on one or the other reason and fixed for hearing particularly on the point of limitation.
6. ' Heard Mr. Sultan Ahmed learned counsel for the applicant, who mostly repeated the same facts, as disclosed in a memo. Of Revision Application. He further states that there are conflict judgments as suit was dismissed and appeal was allowed. He further states that not a single document is produced by the respondent even then appeal is allowed and suit is decreed. He further added that application for certified copies was submitted on very day of the judgment, though delivered to him so late on 1-11-2007, as such revision application is in time and may be admitted for regular hearing. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Yasin Azad learned counsel for the respondent states that a submission of application in time for certified copy is not sufficient as costs were deposited on 30-10-2007, whereas, copy was delivered on 1-11-2007 to the applicant, and revision application presented on 29-1-2008, which clearly indicates that applicant was no more interested and remained mum for a long time and deposited the costs on 30-10-2007, even after expiry of 90 days of preparation of decree, and even after receiving a certified copy, he did not bother to present revision application in time and submitted the same on 29-1-2008, by wasting sufficient time without any cause and explanation, though he has to explain each and every day. Lastly he prayed for dismissal of Revision Application in limine being time bared.
7. ' Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. Admittedly Appeal No,55 of 2006 was allowed by the learned II-Additional District Judge, Karachi South vide judgment, dated 28-5-2007 and decree was framed on 5-7-2007 and application for certified copies was submitted on same day, which is not in dispute. So far, the legal issue in respect of limitation is concerned, there are settled principles that petitioner has to prove his own case and he cannot be benefited on the weakness of other side if any, and he has to explain each and every day and there must be sufficient ground for condonation of delay and to prove that it was not possible for him and was beyond his control to approach the competent Court of law within a particular time. Not only this but it has also been B observed by the apex Court time to time that petitioner/applicant be so conscious in respect of his interest and approach to the competent Court of law having jurisdiction without any delay and in case of failure he must suffer so far and no one be alleged or responsible for his such delay. As per record, application for certified copy was submitted on 28-5-2007, but costs/fees were deposited on 30-10-2007. Copy was delivered on 1-11-2007 and Revision Application presented on 29-.1-2008. In view of aforesaid circumstances, when applicant has applied for certified copy on a very day of the judgment, he cannot deny or dispute that he was unaware in respect of the judgment and decree passed by learned II-Additional District Judge, Karachi South and it was his duty to deposit the costs in time, but he delayed, and remained careless and negligent in respect of his own interest and deposited the costs on 30-10-2007. Not only this, but even on receiving certified copy of the judgment and decree, which were delivered to him on c 1-11-2007, the applicant/ plaintiff remained silent for a long period without any sufficient cause and reason, and presented Revision Application on 29-1- 2008. As such no one can be blamed or burdened so far, and applicant has to suffer. On perusal of material further reveals that applicant has even not submitted an application for condonation of delay, but made a oral request for condonation of delay, though oral D request cannot be allowed and delay cannot be condoned, as observed in a case of Mullah Ahmed v. Assistant Commissioner Sibi and seven others (1986 SCM R 1624), the relevant portion is to the following effect:-- "Section 5 Limitation. Condonation of delay. Appeal time barred. Oral submission made for condonation of delay. Held, would not make valid justification. Appeal dismissed as time barred."
8. Even otherwise each and every day is to be explained, and there must be a sufficient reason, and to explain, that what were the circumstances due to which it was unable for the applicant to approach the competent Court of law within a particular time, though time barred petition/Criminal Acquittal Appeal barred by (1) and (4) day without any explanation were dismissed as barred by time, as observed in a case of Noor Hussain v. Muhammad Salim (1985 SCM R 893), as well as in a case of Rafique Ali v. Kaleem Zia Khawaja and another (2000 CLC 1997 Karachi), the relevant observations are to the following effect:-- "Section 24 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), section 5. Appeal. Limitation. Delay. Condonation. No sufficient cause had been shown by appellant for condonation of four days' delay in filing appeal whereas each days' delay was accountable. Provisions of section 5 Limitation Act, 1908 being not applicable to appeal filed under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, appeal was dismissed being time barred 'In view of above facts, circumstances and law, I am of the view that Revision Application is hopelessly time barred without any reason. As such Civil Revision Application is dismissed in limine.
9. These are the reasons for my short order, dated 3-9-2008.