AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sadiq Abad, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 08.05.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff was set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that predecessor of petitioners, Allah Yar, on 01.12.1983 filed a suit for declaration alleging therein that he is owner in possession of suit property fully described in the head note of plaint and entries in the revenue record are against law and liable to be corrected.
The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.1994 suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed by the defendants before the first Appellate Court, which was accepted on 30.07.1999 and judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside. Hence, this civil revision.
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents-defendants raised preliminary objection that this civil revision is barred by 138 days and further that petitioners have . Not appended certified copies of documentary evidence produced by the respondents defendants as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-30. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that an application (C.M. No. 38/2000) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time for filing of civil revision has been filed and the petitioners have also prayed for condonation of delay.
4. I have noticed that in this application the ground mentioned for condonation of delay is that Sumar son of Allah Yar (plaintiff) submitted his brief to Mr. Abdul Rauf Najmi, Advocate and appointed him to file civil revision in hand and he went back to his house. When he came back to Bahawalpur for information about the fate of his case, he came to know that his said learned counsel has expired and civil revision has been filed, therefore, he engaged another counsel and filed this civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that delay may be condoned and civil revision be presumed to have been filed within limitation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants states that delay has not been explained satisfactorily, so no ground for condonation of delay has been made out and further that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to civil revision.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.
7. 1 have noticed that the judgment and decree of first Appellate Court dated 30.07.1999 and application for certified copies was filed on 09.09.1999, on which date the copies were prepared and delivered to the applicant and then civil revision was filed on 25.02.2000. After deduction of 90 days of prescribed period of limitation, this civil revision becomes time-barred by 138 days. I have noticed that there is no mention in the application that when brief was given to Mr. Abdul Rauf Najmi, Advocate and when he expired and further that when petitioners came to know about the death of said counsel and about non-filing of civil revision by him. The affidavit appended with the application is short one which does not fulfill the requirement of filing of affidavit to substantiate the facts narrated in the application, according to law. In this view of the matter, when no plausible explanation for filing of civil revision after 138 days of prescribed period of limitation has been given, what to talk about the explanation or delay of each day. Under the law petitioners were bound to explain the delay of each day, even otherwise, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable on revision petition. I am of the considered view that the condonation must be prayed in accordance with Section 115 of the C.P.C., which has also not been sought for through the said application.
Moreover, when the revision is defective one, as the copies of documentary evidence produced by the respondents-defendants. Have not been appended with this civil revision, therefore, the petitioners failed to make out a case for condonation of delay. In this view of the matter, application for condonation of delay being devoid of any merits is dismissed and subsequently the civil revision being time-barred is also dismissed.
Civil revision .