' AHMED KHAN LASHARI, J.---The applicants have filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. Nos. 220 & 221 of 2009, wherein prayer has been made for recalling of order dated 23-5-2008 and restoration of petition, dismissed in default and for non-prosecution as well as condonation of the delay in filing application for restoration of the petition.
2. Respondents. President, Hindu Panchayat,' Quetta and Dr. Tara Chand, the then Member, Provincial Assembly, Balochistan, Quetta, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against applicants Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore and Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Quetta, with the averments that 'Arya Samaj Mandir' bearing Municipal No,2-37/10-A, situated at Masjid Road, Quetta, falling under Khasra No,4320, measuring 9145 sq. Ft. Consisting of four rooms with prayer halls, is in the use of Panchayat. The property was declared to be of religious purposes by the Evacuee Department and had no nexus with the Evacuee Trust Board, but still the applicants were interfering in the property, compelling the respondents to institute the suit.
' The suit was contested and the trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, vide judgment dated 5-4-2004 dismissed the suit, against which appeal was filed and the Additional District Judge-V, Quetta vide judgment dated 26-2-2005 allowed the appeal and the respondents' suit was decreed. The applicants, being dissatisfied with the judgment/decree, filed civil revision petition before this Court, which was admitted for regular hearing on 29-5-2005. Subsequently, due to non-appearance of the applicants as well as their counsel, petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 23-5-2008, hence, these applications.
3. M/s. Karnran Murtaza and Abid Mehmood, learned counsel for applicants, contended that the petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on account of absence of Mr. Abid Mehtnood, Advocate, who due to illness of his brother had left for Lahore on 17-5-2008, where his brother expired on 23-5-2008, therefore, the absence 'of the counsel was neither deliberate, nor intentional. It was argued that though application has been filed with a delay, but sufficient cause has been disclosed and this Court has the powers to condone the delay. It was also contended that though specific provision has not been provided for filing application for restoration of the petition dismissed in default, still there is application for condonation of the delay with reasonable ground. They, in support of their arguments referred the judgments-reported in 1971 SCMR 740, PLD 1997 Peshawar 55 and 2004 SCMR 400.
4. Mr. Sundar Dass, learned counsel for respondent No,1, submitted that the application has been filed almost after a lapse of about one year, without disclosing any sufficient cause or reason, thus, applications be dismissed. He, in support of his arguments referred the judgments-reported in 2004 SCMR pages 387-615 and PLD 1995 Lah.
15.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the reported judgments cited as well as record. The petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 23-5- 2008, while the applications, seeking restoration of the petition as well as condonation of the delay, have been filed on 4-3-2009. The plea raised in the applications is that the counsel (Mr. Abid Mehmood, Advocate) on account of sudden illness of his brother had left for Lahore on 17-5-2008, where his brother expired on 23-5-2008, but the counsel has failed to explain the period from 24-5- 2008 to 4-3-2009 (more than nine months) for non-approaching the Court or for non-appearance of the applicants in the matter. The applicants as well as their counsel slept over and filed the applications with the delay, without disclosing the reasons beyond their control.
6. The counsel for applicants referred the judgment-reported in PLD 1997 Peshawar 55, wherein the suit pending before the trial Court was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, against which an appeal was filed, whereby the suit was restored on payment of Rs,5000 as cost and in Civil Revision Petition, the order was not interfered with. The other judgments-reported in 1971 SCMR 740 and 2004 SCMR 400, are also not on the point involved in the matter.
7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No,1 stressed that the applicants have failed to point out any sufficient cause or reason so that the delay occurred in filing the application be condoned.
The judgment, relied upon by the counsel, reported in 2004 SCMR 615, is clear on the -point; the relevant portion thereof is reproduced here in below:-- "It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that their learned counsel was present before the Bench on 30-9-1999 and that the said learned counsel left the Court-room to appear before another learned Bench and it was on his return that he found that the said revision petition had been dismissed for non- prosecution. If this was so, then there is no explanation as to what had taken the petitioners almost four months to make an application for restoration of the said revision petition. In these circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in passing the impugned order."
8. The counsel for applicants submitted that there is no specific provision of law for filing application, seeking restoration of Civil Revision Petitions thus, the Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction conferred under section 115 C.P.C., may restore the petition and that Article 181 of the Limitation Act would apply in the case, which provides a period of three years for filing of applications for restoration of the petitions, dismissed in default. The Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with the point in hand, in the case of Said Ali v. Safdar Ali and others-reported in 2004 SCMR 387 has held that; "Contention of petitioner that no period of limitation was prescribed for restoration of civil revision and thus, he could move application within three years, was not accepted being not in consonance with letter and spirit of law."
It is set. Principle of law and the superior Courts time: and again held that the person, seeking condonation of delay, must explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court and should also establish that the delay has been caused due to reason beyond his control. When the delay in filing application is seemingly due to mere negligence and careless of the applicant, who failed to pursue his case with due diligence, then he is not entitled to any indulgence by the Court.
' What has been discussed hereinabove, the applications, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed.