' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.----Through this civil revision, the petitioner Allah Bukhsh son of Nabi Bakhsh has assailed the judgments and decrees of two Courts below. First judgment and decree of the learned trial Court passed on 26-1-1988 and second judgment and decree of lower appellate Court dated 10-7-1991. Instant revision was filed on 17-11-1992. First order passed by this Court on 2-12-1992 is as under:-- "This revision petition, seemingly time barred by over one year, is sought to be considered on merits but learned counsel is not prepared on the question of condonation of delay, whereabout he has filed C.M. No,1/C-92.
' To enable him to support the submission made therein with reference to precedent-cases, adjournment is made for a fortnight, as prayed."
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that plaintiff Allah Bakhsh was owner of agricultural land measuring 77 Kanals in Khata No,45 in Mauza Panah Kharal Tehsil Layyah. With regard to this land (hereinafter called the suit land) sale-deed 3-5-1961 is purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant. On the basis of this sale-deed, mutation No,1256 was attested on 7-3-1972 in favour of the defendant. The possession of the land was also delivered to petitioner/ defendant.
That subsequently, after near about 24 years respondent/ plaintiff assailed sale-deed as well as mutation No,1256 dated 7-3-1972. It has been further alleged by the plaintiff that he never sold away the suit land to the defendant and the sale-deed which the latter was possessed of was false, fake and forged and was never executed by him and also was without any consideration. It has been asserted that possession was also never delivered by him to the defendant. About the impugned mutation, it has been contended that it being based on a void and illegal document is also liable to be set aside. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has brought the instant suit for declaring both the afore-mentioned documents as illegal, void, without jurisdiction result of impersonation and ineffective qua his ownership rights. As an alternative plea it has been maintained by the plaintiff that he was coming in long continuous uninterrupted possession of the suit land, so has become its owner on account of adverse possession and is entitled to decree for declaration on this basis also. As a consequential relief a permanent prohibitory injunction has also been sought against the defendant.
3. Defendant filed written statement and raised preliminary as well as factual objections.
4. Out of the divergent pleadings learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ISSUES:--
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit has not been properly valued? If so, its effect? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land? OPP
(5) Whether the impugned registered sale-deed and the consequent mutation are against facts and law and void? OPP.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession, in the alternative.
(7) Relief.
5. The petitioner produced Manzoor Hussain P.W.1, Allah Rakha P.W.2 and Allah Bakhsh P.W.3. He also produced copy of mutation Exh.P.1, copy of mutation Exh.P.2, copy of sale-deed Exh.P.3, copy of register Haqdaran Zamin Exh.P.4, copy of Khasragirdawari Exh.P-5 and copy of birth register under objection Exh.P-6.
6. Defendant himself appeared as D.W.1 and produced Ghulam Farid as D. W.2. No documentary evidence was produced by him.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and after appraisal of evidence on record dismissed the suit on 26-1-1988. The appeal of respondent/plaintiff was accepted on 10-7-1991.
8. This revision petition was time barred as explicitly mentioned in the order dated 2-12-1992.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked first to cross this barrier of limitation as the revision petition is hopelessly time barred.
9. This Court in its order dated 14-12-2009 has observed that this revision petition was filed beyond 90 days and C.M. No,1-C/1992 was filed for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with this situation and was asked to cross the barrier of limitation.
10. At the very outset learned counsel for respondent has also raised this objection that this revision petition is hopelessly time barred so prior to arguments on merit this question of limitation should be decided.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not persuade this Court to condone the delay in filing the revision as ratio settled by the honourable Supreme Court in its judgments followed by the High Courts that the delay in filing the civil revision cannot be condoned. Reference car be cited of the cases reported as "Shujat Hussain v. Muhammad Habib and another" 2003 SCMR 170, "Allah Ditta and another v. Muhammad Shah and others" 2001 SCM R 286, 2006 SCM R 676, "Haji Ahmad v. Noor Muhammad reported as 2004 SCM R 1630. These judgments are being followed by the High Courts.
In another case reported as "Pakistan Telecommunication Mobile limited v. Furon Hiyat Khan" reported as 2008 CLC 628 delay of one day was not condoned in filing the civil revision and although petitioner had moved application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying condonation of delay. It was held in reported case "Hafeez Ahmad v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others" reported in 2008 SCM R 107, leave to appeal was granted by honourable Supreme Court to consider the question whether the delay in filing a revision petition beyond 90 days was not condonable ir any case. Period of limitation for filing revision has been prescribed by section 115 of, C.P.C. Itself which was a special enactment. Section 29(2) of Limitation Act 1908 had envisaged that where period of limitation was differently provided by any special/local law or enactment provisions contained in sections 4,9,18 and 22 of said Act would apply and remaining provisions of said Act would not be applicable where limitation was provided by any special enactment other than limitation Act, 1908.
12. In the light of above mentioned cases application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay in filing the instant civil revision is dismissed and main civil revision is also dismissed as being hopelessly time barred. No order as to cost.