' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.---By means of instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the impugned orders dated 2-7-2009 and 11-11-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala and order dated 17-12-2009 passed by learned District Judge, Gujranwala.
2. Facts of the case succinctly required for determination of the above civil revision are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the suit through her counsel, however, despite affording several opportunities, written statement on her behalf was not filed and vide order dated 2-7-2009, the learned trial Court seized with the matter closed her right to file written statement. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner against that order, however, on 24-7-2009, presuming the order dated 2-7-2009 as an ex parte order, an application was filed by the petitioner in the learned trial Court for setting aside of the order dated 2-7-2009. Her application was dismissed vide order dated 11-11-2009. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed both the orders of the learned trial Court dated 2-7-2009 and 11-11-2009 by way of filing appeal before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala. The learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 17-12-2009, dismissed the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the peculiar facts of the case the delay in filing appeal should have been condoned by the learned lower appellate Court and the appeal should have been decided on merits, as it has been consistent view of the apex Court that the decisions should be made on merits and not on technicalities. In support of his stance, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Col. (Retd.) Ayub Ali Rana v. Dr. Carlite S. Punge and another PLD 2002 SC 630. While questioning the order dated 2-7-2009 passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 8-6-2009, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 2-7-2009 and on that day the learned trial Court struck off the right of the petitioner for submitting written statement. Learned counsel has further contended that the Reader of the Court had no authority to direct the petitioner to submit written statement and as such on 2-7-2009, the learned trial Court was also not justified to struck off the right of the petitioner while mentioning that several opportunities were afforded although facts remains that the learned Presiding Officer was not present on the previous date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on 2004 YLR 959 and 2001 CLC 200 Lahore has urged that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
4. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition and has supported the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. It is contended that on 2-4-2009, specific direction was passed for submission of written statement, however, despite affording five opportunities in the time span of three months, written statement on behalf of the petitioner was not filed. It is further stated that admittedly the order dated 2-7-2009 was passed in the presence of the petitioner and her counsel, which fact is also corroborated from the order sheet, the petitioner remained indolent and did not prefer any appeal against that order rather filed an application on 24-7-2009 seeking setting aside the ex parte proceedings although only her right to file written statement was struck off. It is also contended that the learned District Judge, Gujranwala legally and lawfully dismissed the appeal preferred by the B petitioner being hopelessly time barred. In the end it has been contended that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at while appraising the material available on file in its true perspective should not be interfered with. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on 2002 SCM R 1954, 2004 CLC 658 and 2004 CLC 1811.
5. Arguments heard. I have also gone through the record available on file as well as the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below with the able assistance of learned counsel for both sides.
6. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was afforded five opportunities for filing written statement, which she failed. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner failed to prefer appeal against the order dated 2-7-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that she was not aware of the fact that appeal should be preferred against the order dated 2-7-2009 or application should be filed against the same order, has no weight as bare perusal of the order sheet reveals that the presence of her counsel is marked on each and every date of hearing. Moreover, it is well settled by now that ignorance of law is no excuse. The learned District Judge, Gujranwala rightly held that the appeal was hopelessly time barred.
7. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is very limited as interference only in such findings can be made suffering from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. Reference in this regard can be placed to the case of Umer Zad Shah and 2 others v. Karim Dad Khan 2004 CLC 1811. Moreover against the concurrent findings, revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., is exercised when the subordinate Courts have exercised the jurisdiction not vesting in them under the law or have failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in them or material illegality/irregularity has been committed. I have gone through the orders passed by the learned Courts below and the stance taken by both sides. To my mind the concurrent findings of facts contained in the orders dated 2-7-2009 and 17-12-2009 passed by the learned Courts below are just having been passed in a lawful manner. No interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. Reliance is placed on: 2009 SCM R 54.
' Alamgir Khan through L.Rs, and others v. Haji Abdul Sattar Khan and others 2009 SCM R 54.
' Amir Abdullah Khan v. Kafaitullah Khan 2008 SCM R 756.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant civil revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.