Respondent No, 3 Rao Habib-ur-Rehman, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner alongwith which an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for the grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The Civil Judge vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, directed the petitioner to install a transformer at the place mentioned in the suit and not to claim expenditure thereof from Respondent No, 3 till the final decision of the suit, where against an appeal was preferred which was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Burewala District Vehari.
2. Through this revision petition the petitioner assails both the orders passed by the learned Courts below.
3. It is inter alia contended that learned Courts below could not justifiably pass the impugned order and should have burdened Respondent No, 3 to bear costs of the transformer and that by allowing interim relief in fact the main relief has been given to the Respondent No, 3.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at quite some length and with his able assistance have minutely gone through the available record as well as the impugned orders.
5. This petition admittedly is barred by thirty-seven days. No doubt an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking Condonation of delay has also been filed, along with this petition but the sole ground urged in Para 4 of the said application is as follows. that the delay in few days for filing the civil revision was due to the administrative and official formalities"
To my mind that is no ground, winch could be considered as plausible or sufficient, for condonation of delay. By now it is well-settled proposition of law that Government functionaries in matters of limitation cannot be treated differently from those ordinary litigants from general public. The law of limitation, therefore, has equal application to all.
6. On merits both the learned Courts below proceeded to pass well-reasoned orders, in accordance with the peculiar facts of the case and while applying the relevant law which is also in lines with the order dated 15.03.2006 passed by this Court in cases of similar nature. Besides the order impugned is interim in nature.
7. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine, as barred by time as well as on merits.