' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Nasrullah petitioner/defendant has impugned the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2010 of Civil Judge IV, D.I. Khan was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan vide judgment and decree dated 30-1-2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Aman Ullah respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through partition of 1/2 share in the suit house bearing No,C/1659- 1661 measuring 3 Marlas, 40 Square Feet situated at Mohallah Gosianwala D.I.Khan, details 'of which have been fully described in the heading of the plaint. The suit" was contested by the petitioner/defendant through submission of his written statement. After framing of issues, recording pro and contra evidence and hearing both the counsel for the parties, the trial Court granted decree as prayed for in favour of respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-2010 referred to above. Aggrieved from the aforesaid findings of the trial Court, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which too met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 30-1-2012.
Hence, present revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on pre-admission notice and have also perused the material available on the file.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has pointed out that the instant revision petition is badly time-barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant in response of it stated at the bar that the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 at the time of presentation of this revision and grounds mentioned therein are worth consideration. Hence according to him on the acceptance of his application for seeking condonation of delay, this revision petition is well within time. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court shows that it was passed on 30-1-2012 and the petitioner/defendant has submitted application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court on 1-3-2012 which were supplied to him on 2-3-2012 and thereafter the present revision petition has been filed by him on 17-5-2012 after a delay of about 15/16 days while the stipulated period of limitation of ninety days (90) has been mentioned in section 115, C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant could not give any reasonable and plausible justification, as to why the limitation should be condoned and in absence of any lawful justification no concession can be given. The law of limitation cannot be considered merely a formality but the same is required to be observed and taken into consideration being ' mandatory in nature. The purpose of law of limitation is to help the vigilant and not the indolent. A helping hand may not be extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights. Concerned person has, however, to B be made aware of the invasion of his interests, and awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Revision Petition being hopelessly time-barred is liable to be dismissed.
5. So far as the merits of the case are 'concerned, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree and its findings on all issues being based on proper appraisal of evidence are well-founded and thus the learned lower Appellate Court was justified to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner/defendant on account of having no substance in it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed during the course of arguments to point out any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below who have neither exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law nor have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it by law nor in the exercise of its jurisdiction have acted illegally or with material irregularity, therefore, in view of the above discussion I find that the judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are well-founded and thus need no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, on account of the fact that the judgments of both the Courts below neither suffer from miscarriage of justice nor are the result of misreading or non- reading of evidence on record.
6. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed being hopelessly time-barred and having no substance in it, thus, the same is dismissed on merits also. C.M. Nos. 217-D and 218-D of 2012 stand dismissed.