M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- The facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction that the predecessorin-interest of the defendants Nos.
6 to 13 had alienated their property situated in Khewat 'No. 1243 in their favour which has not been described properly in the plaint. It was averred that the respondents being collusive with each other by concealing the previous entry in the record had again managed themselves entered in the column of ownership against the entries in the record of right pertaining to the year 1995/56, according to which they were only mentioned as vendors. Prayer was made in the plaint that a decree be passed in favour of the petitioners that the respondents/defendants in no manner are owners of the property and the entries in the Revenue Record are based on male fide; that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had alienated the property to the predecessorin- interest of the petitioners in the year 1955/56 and the petitioners are in possession of the land since then as owner; that their ownership be admitted and process of partition of the property be stayed till the final decision of the suit.
2. That respondents appeared before the learned Trial Court and submitted written statement raising legal and factual objections and also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 16.12.2007 rejected the plaint.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which was finally dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi being barred by time vide judgment dated 30.5.2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., and also the reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi rejecting the appeal being barred by time.
5. From the averments of the plaint it is clear that suit for partition filed by the petitioners before the learned Assistant Collector was dismissed. Latter on the same was restored and the petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Collector before the E.D.O.R. Who also decided against the present petitioner. During the arguments before the learned Civil Judge learned counsel for the petitioner admitted the factum that defendants moved petition for partition of suit-land and for the averments of the plaint it is also clear that parties have gone to the Revenue Court for partition of the suit property and the partition of the suit property has been ordered and according to the learned Civil Judge, the petitioners want to avoid the partition being conducted by the competent authority according to the Land Revenue Act and the suit is also barred under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act. Resultantly, he rejected the plaint vide order dated 16.2.2007.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Civil Judge was also barred by time as the impugned order passed on 16.2.2007 and the appeal before the learned District Judge was filed on 6.4.2007. Petitioner applied for the certified copies on 21.3.2007 after the expiry of the period limitation. Copies were prepared on 28.3.2007 and thereafter appeal was filed on 6.4.2007. The grounds urged before the learned Additional District Judge for condonation of the delay was that the petitioners were not aware about the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and it came to the petitioner No. 1 knowledge about dismissal of appeal on 21.3.2007 when he came from Gujjar Khan to enquire about the fate of the suit and it transpired that the plaint has been rejected. The reasons for condonation of delay are not believable that for complete five weeks out of the twenty-seven petitioners/plaintiffs none came to know about the order passed by the learned Civil Judge which was passed in the presence of the learned counsel and nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that they were not aware about the decision and the order was passed by the learned Civil Judge without hearing their counsel.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no good ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below rejecting the plaint and dismissing the appeal being barred by time.
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .