' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 24-5-2012 of learned Additional District Judge-I, Peshawar whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 28-7-2011 of learned Civil Judge-XII, Peshawar has been dismissed.
2. Precise background of the present dispute is that, the petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of certain amount coupled with a prayer for consequential relief in the form of permanent injunction which suit, however, after certain proceedings was dismissed by the learned trial Court for want of prosecution on 25-9-2007. Petitioner filed an application for the restoration of the said suit dismissed in default, on 14-3-2008. The said application for restoration was contested by the respondents but the learned trial Court dismissed the said application as time-barred and on the ground of having no sufficient cause on 28-7-2011. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner filed an appeal which also met the same fate, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that judgments and decrees of both the learned lower courts are illegal, against material available on record and in utter disregard of relevant provision of law, hence not tenable; that the findings of both the courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence both the forums below overlooked the settled principle of law; that petitioner being pardanashin lady came to know regarding the dismissal of her suit on 1-3-2008 and subsequently applied for its restoration, within 30 days from the knowledge; that the absence of the petitioner/plaintiff was not intentional but was due to un- avoidable circumstances; that both the forums below violated the basic principle laid down by the higher judiciary that all the cases be decided on merits and not on technicalities. In this respect relied on 2011 YLR 1234.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Record reveals that suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed in default on 25-9-2007 but petitioner brought application for-restoration of said suit on 13-3-2008 i,e, after a lapse of about 5 months and 18 days, whereas the time limitation provided for restoration of suit and for setting aside order of dismissal for default of appearance, is 30 days, from the date of dismissal. In this regard, Article 163 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is relevant which is reproduced verbatim, as under:--- By a plaintiff, for an Order to set aside a dismissal for default of appearance or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs.Thirty days. The date of the dismissal
5. Since the law of limitation has provided a cut-off time for filing of application, in this respect i,e, 30 days, therefore, no court can extend the time/period, in any circumstances, however, as per maxim lex semper dabit remedium (the law will always give a remedy). Whenever there is a limitation there is a remedy/relief and for that very purpose section-5 of Limitation Act, 1908 will come into play which reads as under:---
5. Extension of period in certain cases. Any appeal or application for a revision or a review or judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
' Explanation. The fact that the appellant or applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning' of this section.
6. The object of law of limitation is to regulate the course and manner for providing relief or remedy, where substantive rights are pressed in litigation. The restriction of time limit, is an outcome of public policy. Public policy to limit the time for bringing an action or claim before the court of law is adopted in the legal system of all civilized State. No doubt, the superior courts had time and again held and encourage the decision on merits instead of technicalities but it does not mean that in every case the law Of limitation is ignored, which will put the law redundant. The law of limitation itself has provided an inbuilt remedy for that purpose in the shape of section-5 thus, an application for condonation of delay is mandatory whenever, any application or appeal etc, has been filed after prescribed period.
7. It is worth to note that petitioner brought instant application after lapse of 5 months and 18 days but no application for condonation of delay was filed. If we go through the contents of the application for restoration it would indicate that firstly it was an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings secondly, and for restoration of the file. On merits, it was contended in the application that the counsel for petitioner was ill; he had undergone surgery and was advised bed rest, with no reason of disappearance of plaintiff herself or the mtinshi/clerk of the counsel. Since there was no application for condonation of delay, therefore, the trial Court was not required to have recorded an evidence in this respect because on the face of it the application for restoration of suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and limitation cannot be condoned without there being justification for each and every day's delay. Courts would show indulgence only if error is one which be committed by a reasonable and prudent means exercising due diligence and caution, moreover leges vigilantibus, non-dormientibus jura sub veniunt (the law aid those who keep watch not those who sleep).
8. The attitude of the petitioner was so careless that even during the proceedings she could have filed an application under section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 because no period has been provided for such application, but unfortunately she was not advised legally, in this respect, ignorantia excusotur non juris sed facti (ignorance of fact is excused but not ignorance of law)
9. In the instant case, the sufficient cause is also missing because it has been time and again held that sufficient cause is that cause which is beyond the control of a party whereas in the instant case, if the counsel was ill but petitioner/plaintiff herself was also not found to be vigilant. If at all, petitioner would have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act then the trial Court was bound to have recorded the evidence, in this respect no doubt law has given wide discretion to the court in determining what is sufficient cause, but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The courts are not supposed to go into the merits of the case when the question of limitation is not satisfactorily met with.
10. Even otherwise, the learned courts below have, attended to the matter by discussing each and every aspect on record and non-suited the petitioner on sound reasons. The petitioner has failed to prove her claim through overwhelming and reliable reasons, therefore, in this view of the matter when the concurrent findings recorded by lower courts are neither illegal nor suffer from any illegality, the impugned judgments and decree of both the lower courts are in accordance with law and material available on record. No misreading, non-reading or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, which could justify interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, a limited one.
11. As a corollary to the above, instant dismissed, in limine with no order as to costs. Revision petition is .