SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.- The respondent No,3/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through specific performance with the prayer for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.4 to 19, interim injunction was granted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner filed an application for vacation of injunctive relief, it was dismissed. The petitioner was also directed A to file written statement, the needful was not done, therefore, his defence was struck off. The petitioner filed an appeal which also was dismissed, hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from patent illegalities, the same is not reflective of the correct position on record, the petitioner had a vested right to file written statement and forfeiting the right is illegal, as the petitioner was not granted adequate opportunity in this context.
3. Heard.
4. I have appraised the record of the proceedings with the assistance of the learned counsel. It is clear that the trial Court dismissed the suit to the extent of defendants Nos.2 to 17 on 26-10-2007, and struck off the right of the petitioner to file the written statement, after recording that at least 14 opportunities to the petitioner to - file the written statement. It also is clear from the tenor of the order that the written statement was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thus the order of the trial Court is unexceptionable. Now adverting to the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that aggrieved of this order, an appeal was filed on 8-9-2008 after Almost lapse of one year. The lower appellate Court held that appeal was not competent and converted the proceedings into a revision petition. But also ruled that it is barred by limitation as the same was required to be filed within 90 days of the order impugned. A bare perusal of record reflects that the revision petition was filed much later thus it is clearly barred by limitation. The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay are not applicable to revision petitions.
Reference City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCM R 676). Therefore, the impugned order is unexceptionable, resultantly, this petition has no merits and is therefore, dismissed.