' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.--- Petitioner Fazal Hameed etc. Have filed the present revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 19-7-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mardan whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-2010 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration etc. Against the present petitioners/defendants. They contested the suit and after the culmination of trial,' the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-12-2010 decreed the suit of the respondents. The said judgment and decree, of the trial Court was assailed by petitioners/defendants by filing appeal, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19-7-2011 and now the petitioners filed the present revision petition and challenged the impugned order and judgment on different grounds inter alia that both the Courts below committed illegality by passing the impugned order and judgment/decree which cannot be sustainable in law. That the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation only, in spite of the fact of availability of evidence on the record and it was required to go through the merits as well and to have disposed of appeal in complete and an appropriate manner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
4. Now the main question for determination is that whether the appeal is within time or not and whether petitioners have made out a case for condonation of delay?
5. Record shows that the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 23-12-2010 while the petitioner applied for the copies on 7-2-2011 and attested copies of judgment and decree were delivered on 8-2-2011 and appeal was filed on 10-2-2011 after a delay of 19/20 days without any application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has not given any cogent reason for their failure to file the appeal within stipulated period of one month. They were bound to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree within one month from the date of passing of decree but they after passing the decree on 23-1-2011 had gone into deep slumber and awaken on 10-2- 2011 after passing of sufficient time when much water had already passed over the bridge.
6. It is settled, law that condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court to condone or not to condone the delay after its satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is the duty and obligation of the Court to exercise its discretion keeping in view the principle of equity and fairplay in judicial manner and has no power to exercise discretion arbitrarily. It is settled law that object of law of limitation is to help vigilant and not to the indolent. Law of limitation is required to be construed strictly and that delay of each day has to be explained. Reference is made to PLD 2011 SC 657 where in it is held:--- "Aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedies with diligence and if a petition or a suit etc. Is filed beyond limitation each day's delay has to be explained. Where vague explanation was given without even specifying the date of knowledge, nor any explanation tenable in law was provided to justify condonation, delay condoned was violative of law and, was not sustainable".
' Reference is also made to PLD 2011 SC 174 where the august Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by holding:--- ' No mention of any sufficient cause in application for condonation of delay which was evasive and vague, no explanation had been given as to why appellant waited till 4-6-2005 for filing of appeal after order dated 9-5-2005 passed by Supreme CourtAppeal was not promptly and immediately instituted and there was no explanation for each and every day's delay. Supreme Court declined to condone delay".
' Reference is also made to 2011 SCM R 1424 and 2011 SCMR.
1341.
7. In the present case petitioner did not bother to file any application for condonation of delay in this regard before appellate Court. No ground to condone the delay has been shown. In this respect case 1974 SCM R 104 and 1974 SCM R 223 are relevant. Thus even if an important point is involved in a case that would not, in any way, allow the Court to use its discretion in an arbitrary way to override the provisions of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay as respondents have accrued vested rights by efflux of time. Expiry of limitation vests a person with a valuable right. It cannot be taken away by condonation of delay. It is well-known maxim "Delay defeats equities" and words of lord Camdon, a Court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time.
8. When see in this backdrop I do not think, the petitioner has made out a case for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Thus the revision petition being without substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.