In the instant civil revision Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur through its Principal (hereinafter referred as petitioner) has called in question the orders dated 20.2.2007 and 26.10.2007 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur and the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur respectively .whereby Muhammad Aslam/Respondent No, l's petition for condonation of delay was accepted.
2. It has been opposed by the learned counsel representing the Respondents No, 1 and 2.
3. Both the parties have been heard and record perused.
4. There is no cavil to say that the controversy between the .parties was set at rest at the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as a result of which, the execution petition under reference was filed though belatedly with a petition for condonation of delay giving reasons therefor. There is also no denial of the fact that originally father of Respondent No 1, namely, Rehmat Ali used to pursue the matter as General Attorney. The case of the petitioner before the learned lower forums was that being a permanent resident of Karachi in connection with his private business there, the moment he came to know about the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in his favour after the death of his father Rehmat Ali, he immediately moved execution petition for recovery of decretal amount to the tune of Rs,5,00,000/- as compensation passed against Province of the Punjab through Collector/Respondent No, 2 The reasons given for extension were duly supported by an affidavit filed on his behalf.
5. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that at no stage affidavit of any functionary from petitioner's side was got placed on record to controvert the contentions/reasons advanced by the Respondent No, 1 to seek extension. So, therefore, in absence of such a counter affidavit the contentions raised and supported by affidavit in his petition for condonation would be deemed to have been admitted by the opposite side which is the case here. In this regard reliance has been placed on Civil Aviation Authority Vs. M/s. Providence Aviation (Put) Limited (2000 CLC 1722), Basham Khan and others Vs. Syed Shafi Shah and others (1983 SCMR 183), President of Pakistan through Chairman, P.W.R., Lahore Vs. Sarfraz Khan (1980 CLC 541), Muhammad Farooq M. Memon, Advocate Vs. Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi (1986 CLC 1408).
6. When confronted with the above position, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to advance any plausible explanation. So, therefore, there is nothing on the face of record to make a case for interference by this Court with the impugned orders when under the law the learned executing Court had condoned the limitation in exercise of its discretionary powers in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act after proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts below are neither perverse nor arbitrary calling for any interference by this Court in revision. Accordingly, it is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.