AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. - Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009, whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and judgment and decree dated 21.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Ahmadpur East, whereby suit for pre- emption filed by the petitioner- plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff- petitioner on 4.9.2006 filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of agricultural land through mutation No. 1996 sanctioned on 22.5.2006 in favour of defendants- respondents. During, pendency of the suit, an application for withdrawal of the suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner and his learned counsel got recorded statement for withdrawal of the suit on 19.11.2008 and prayed for return of the Court-fees. The learned Trial Court adjourned the case for 3.12.2008. On 3.12.2008, another learned counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and sought adjournment on the ground that he wants to consult the plaintiff about statement dated 19.11.2008, The case was adjourned to 22.12.2008. On 22.12.2008, some Advocates appeared for the parties before the Court and learned Trial Court ordered for personal appearance of the plaintiff for 14.1.2009. On 14.1.2009, the plaintiff appeared and stated that the counsel, who got recorded the statement, was his counsel and some application was moved, For reply of the same, the case was adjourned to 27.2.2009 and on, 2j.3.2009, the Trial Court recorded its findings and dismissed the suit on the basis of statement recorded on 19.11.2008. This dismissal order was challenged before the 1st Appellate Court. The appeal was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that statement got recorded by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner was without his instruction, therefore, it is not binding upon the plaintiff. Further states that both the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below be set aside and case be remanded for fresh decision.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents states that this revision petition is time- barred by six days and there is no ground to set aside the findings recorded by two Courts below.
5. I have noticed that C.M. No. 1 Pf 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. I am clear in my mind that Section 5 of Limitation Act js not applicable to the civil revision, though I am conscious that above-mentioned provision of law is also no hurdle in the way of justice but it is equally important that when any relief is granted by the Court, the same must be with reference to some provision of law and the Court must also have the jurisdiction to grant the relief. I have a view that condonation of delay in filing the civil revision, can be granted under Section 115 of the CPC but for claiming the condonation, the applicant or the petitioner must prove his case for grant of condonation within four corners of Section 115, CPC. In this case, I have noticed that learned counsel who drafted this application, was having Section 5 of the Limitation Act in his mind and even for claiming the delay, the petitioner is bound to explain the delay of each and every day and no such explanation is given. When the provision of Section 115, CPC certainly was not in the mind of the author of the application, therefore, no question of pleading ground for condonation of delay is permissible under Section 115, CPC, therefore, this delay cannot be condoned.
6. In the light of above discussion, C.M. No. 1 of 2010 is hereby dismissed being meritless.
7. I have noticed that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below in favour of the respondents-defendants and two Courts have expressed their discretion vested by law, that cannot be declared to be contrary to law while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC without any justifying reasons.
8. In this view of the matter, no case for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC has been made out, therefore, this civil revision stands dismissed with costs.