' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through instant Revision Application filed under section 115, C.P.C., the applicant has impugned the order dated 21-12-2010 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Badin, whereby application under section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the applicant for condonation of the delay in filing of Civil Appeal No,148 of 2010 preferred by the applicant against the judgment and decree dated 27-10-2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Badin in IIIrd Class Suit No,1 of 2003 (Muhammad Essa v. Muhammad and others), was declined and consequently civil appeal was also dismissed in limine.
2. Relevant facts narrated in instant revision application are that the applicant purchased land bearing City. Survey No,90, admeasuring 2-14 acres, situated in Deh Ojheri, Taluka Badin from its owner namely Ghulam Yaseen. The respondents also raised their claim of ownership over the suit- land, therefore, the applicant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against them. The respondents filed written statement in said suit, and respondent No,5 Ali Muhammad also filed F.C.
Suit No,72 of 2010 against the applicant for declaration, cancellation, possession and permanent injunction. Thereafter above both suits were consolidated and ultimately dismissed by the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Badin. Against said impugned judgment, the applicant filed Civil Appeal No,148 of 2010 along with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the court of the learned District Judge, Badin, which was transferred to the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Badin, who dismissed the civil appeal vide the impugned order dated: 21-12-2010, which has given rise to instant revision application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant had purchased the suit-land from its real owner through registered lease deed, but due to false claims of the respondents, the applicant has filed third class suit against the respondents, while respondents have filed first class suit against the applicant, and both suits were amalgamated by the trial Court of Senior Civil Judge, Badin. After completing trial, the learned trial Court dismissed both Suits vide judgment dated 27-10-2010. The applicant filed Civil Appeal 148 of 2010 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of main appeal and in support of his affidavit a medical certificate was also attached, but the learned appellate court had not considered the ground of sickness of the applicant and dismissed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in hasty manner and resultantly Civil Appeal No,148 of 2010 was also dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and has contended that the applicant has failed to explain the delay in filing of civil appeal and the medical certificate produced along with application for condonation of delay was defective and withdut any detail of treatment, therefore, the learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed application for condonation as well as civil appeal filed by the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the relevant record with their assistance.
6. Perusal of record and arguments reflects that both suits filed by the parties were dismissed by the trial Court of learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 27-10-2010. The applicant assailed the impugned judgment by preferring Civil Appeal No,148 of 2010, as it was not within time, therefore, he filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of the delay in filing of appeal on the ground of his illness and he also filed medical certificate in support of his claim.
7. It is crystal clear that the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Badin passed the impugned judgment and decree on 27-10-2010, while the applicant applied for certified copies of judgment and decree on 30-11-2010 and on the same day cost was paid and stamps were supplied. Copy was prepared and delivered on 1-12-2010. Thereafter the civil appeal was filed on 13-12-2010. From the above referred circumstances, it is needless to mention herein that the applicant has not applied immediately for grant of certified copies of judgment and decree, but he applied for the subject purpose too late and even after expiry of appeal period.
8. Perusal of the medical certificate reflects that a simple medical certificate was issued by a private doctor who has mentioned that the applicant had remained under his treatment from 25- 11-2010 to 12-12-2010 as case of malarial fever. Nowhere it is mentioned in medical certificate that the appellant remained as in-door patient in the hospital and was bed-ridden and during that period was unable to contact his counsel and even neither any detail of medicines nor medical tests were produced by the applicant before the trial Court to establish a prima facie arguable case that due to his serious sickness he was unable to file his appeal within stipulated time.
Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the applicant could not take benefit of said medical certificate. Furthermore, amazingly he applied for certified copies on 30-11-2010, which itself negates his contention that applicant was sick from 25-11-2010 to 12-12-2010. Admittedly copies were delivered to the applicant on 1-12-2010 but he filed civil appeal on 13-12-2010. It is well- established law that law would support and favour to the vigilant, attentive and observant but not an indolent, lethargic and sluggish, therefore, applicant was bound to pursue his cause appropriately, dynamically and vigorously, therefore, he could not deserve for any concession for his negligence, slackness and inattention regarding filing of civil appeal with inordinate delay.
9. At this juncture, I would like to refer identical case-law as follows:---
(i) In case of Lal Khan through legal heirs v. Muhammad Yousuf through legal heirs, PLD 2011 SC 657 honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:--- "Aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedies with diligence and if a petition or 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".
(ii) In case of IGI Investment Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Admore Gas (Pvt.) Ltd. And another 2014 CLD 658, it has held that while seeking condonation of delay, the applicant has to submit explanation for the delay of each and every day, which has not been done by the applicant, hence justification given by the applicant cannot be accepted.
(iii) In case of Allah Dino v. Hall Ahmed through legal heirs and 3 others, PLD 2006 Karachi 148, it has held that if condonation of delay was claimed on medical grounds, the medical certificate must disclose that the person concerned was bed-ridden and was unable to move. Medical Certificate produced by the appellants along with the application for condonation of delay did not contain the address of the doctor or that of his clinic, reading of the certificate showed that according to the doctor the patient had recovered and was able to "join his duty" and certificate did not disclose that the appellant, who was allegedly suffering from Sciatica was bed-ridden for the entire period and that he was unable to move or even communicate the instructions to the advocate to prefer an appeal. Jurisdiction exercised by the appellate Court in not condoning the delay in circumstances. Was neither illegal nor arbitrary thus no interference was called for.
(iv) In case of Muhammad Hussain v. Waheed Ahmed and others, 2000 MLD 281, it has held that revision filed was delayed by 42 days. Plea taken by the petitioners for such delay was that the certified copies of the record of trial Court were applied for and received after the receipt of certified copies of judgment. Such a ground taken in the application for condonation of delay could not provide a valid, excuse in filing revision petition. Revision having been filed after the prescribed period of 90 days, delay was not condoned in circumstances.
For the forgoing reasons, circumstances and identical case law, it has transpired that the applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause and reasonable ground to condone the delay in filing of the civil appeal while on the account of condonation of delay, the applicant was bound to furnish plausible explanation for the delay of each and every day before the court that it was impossible for him to approach the court within the prescribed time, but in present case, the applicant has miserably failed to furnish plausible explanation and unavoidable circumstances in support of his claim regarding condonation of delay in filing of appeal, therefore, I am of the considered view that the applicant has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in impugned order dated 21-12-2010 passed by learned Appellate Court, which is just, proper and in accordance with law as such it does not call for any interference and the same is maintained. Consequently, instant Revision Application stands dismissed being non-maintainable under the law.