' KHAWAJA IMTIAZ AHMAD, J.-- The relevant facts for the disposal of these petitions are that the suit for partition was preliminary decreed and the Local Commissioner was appointed. The Local Commissioner submitted the report suggesting mode of partition. The said mode of partition was objected to but the plea of the petitioners was not accepted by the learned courts below and so he filed Civil Revision No,245 of 2004. This court vide order dated 14-6-2004, admitted the civil revision for regular hearing. However, on 20-9-2004, the counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 made appearance but nobody appeared from the petitioners' side, so the said civil revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-9-2004. It was on 15-2-2008 i.e, after about 3 years and 5 months, when the present C.M. No,52-C of 2008 had been filed for the restoration of the civil revision and C.M. No,53-C of 2008 had been filed for the condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the civil revision had been admitted for regular hearing then it cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and that even if nobody made the appearance front the petitioners' side even then the civil revision should have been disposed of on merits. In this behalf he has placed reliance upon AI-Haaj Muhammad Rafique v. Mst. Khalida Shehzadi (2003 CLC 559) and Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 820),
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the present CM had been filed after the lapse of 3 years, so the petitioners were liable to explain each and every day of delay. He contended that it is not the case of the petitioners that they were not in touch with the counsel and if their counsel had not appeared in the court then they cannot get benefit out of their un-awareness of the dismissal of the civil revision. He placed reliance upon Aman Ullah Soomro v. PIA through Managing Director/Chairman and another (2011 SCM R 1341) and Mst. Hajran Bibi and others v. Abdul Ghani (2002 SCM R 1405). He further contended that now the final decree has been passed and the possession has also been transferred according to the shares of the parties in view of the final decree passed in the year 2010 and the matter has been closed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The first judgment on the point is the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 82). The facts of the said case are that in the said case the application for restoration was filed within three years. The question was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioners were liable to explain each and every day of delay. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that Article 181 of the Limitation Act was applicable and since the application was moved within three years, so there was no necessity for explaining each and every day of delay. It was also observed that the courts after having entertained a civil revision instead of dismissing it in default may make efforts to dispose it of in accordance with the parameters laid down by section 115, C.P.C. As has been mentioned above that the present petition has been moved after the lapse of three years and so the petitioners were required to explain each and every day of delay.
However, not even a single word has been mentioned with regard to the conduct of their counsel or that the petitioners were not in touch with their counsel. In a case of Aman Ullah Soomro v. PIA through Managing Director/Chairman and another (2011 SCM R 1341), on the same grounds the plea of negligence of counsel was raised and it was observed that the plea raised by the petitioners might be attractive on moral plain but there was no justification for depriving opposite party of legal rights acquired owing to negligence of petitioner or counsel retained by him. Right to recover amount of wrongful loss caused on account of negligence was available to petitioner. In a case-law reported in Mst. Hajran Bibi and others v. Abdul Ghani (2002 SCM R 1405), almost similar proposition was taken into consideration. In the said case the revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11-11-1996 and the application for its restoration was made on 12-7-1999 with application for condonation of delay. It. Was observed that the petitioners had failed to explain delay of each day, which they were obliged to do. It was further observed that the plea of non- supply of copy of cause list to petitioners' counsel would hardly constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in absence of an affidavit of the person concerned and the petitioners had failed to keep contact with their counsel and pursue revision petition diligently. Now in the present case the petitions have been moved after the prescribed period of limitation, i.e, three years provided under Article 181 of Limitation Act. Nothing has been mentioned about the counsel, who was representing the petitioners. Even it has not been mentioned in the petition that their counsel did not inform them or that they were not in touch with their counsel. In this way no case for restoration of the civil revision is made out. Even otherwise the transaction has become past and closed, since both the parties had admitted that in the light of final decree the possession has been handed over to the sharers. This being so, both the petitions have no force and the same stand dismissed.