' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---This civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-2-2013 of the learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2012 of the learned Civil Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, was dismissed.
2. Facts engendering to this civil revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for the recovery of:--
(a) Rs.58,500 outstanding rent of Shop No.16 situated, in Paroa Adda from 1-6-2001 to October, 2007, February 2008 to February 2009 at the rate of Rs.650 per month,
(b) Rs.25,000 with the. Following breakup:- Counsel fee Rs.10,000 Cost of suit Rs.5,000 Official expenses Rs.10,000 Total Rs.83,500
3. Petitioner appeared in consequence of the summon issued to him and contested the suit by refuting the claim of the respondent. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues directed the parties to the suit to produce their respective evidence which they did whereafter the, learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22-11-2012 decreed the suit only to the extent of prayer- A of the plaint for Rs.58,500 while rest of the claim was declined.
4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court but his appeal was dismissed in limine on 20-2-2013 by the learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan on the ground that the appeal is barred by time. Hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court is against law and facts of the case. He argued that there was an application for condonation of delays with the appeal showing therein good grounds for condoning the delay but the learned appellate court has not given its anxious thought and consideration to the points urged by the petitioner.
6. As against the above, the learned A.A.-G. Opposed the revision petition on the ground that appeal of the petitioner was rightly dismissed as the same was barred by time and no reasonable grounds were there in the application.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that suit against the petitioner was decreed on 22-11-2012 and he applied for getting certified copies of the judgment and decree on 15-12-2012 which were so supplied to him on 18-12-2012 and he filed the appeal on 3-1-2013. Though there was an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal before the learned appellate court in which the petitioner has averred that he was hospitalized at PIMS at Islamabad and thus due to his illness was unable to file, the appeal within time but in order to prove his illness or treatment at PIMS, the petitioner has not annexed any document showing that either he was ill or was admitted at PIMS for his medical treatment. Mere bald and oral statement that the petitioner could not prefer appeal within time due to his indisposition would not be a sufficient ground to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. Moreso, there is no material that when the petitioner was admitted and discharged from PIMS and when he reached D.I.Khan. In order to seek condonation of delay caused in filing of a lis, a litigant must explain the delay of each and every day which the petitioner has not so explained.
9. The petitioner has also not annexed any record either of his illness or his treatment received by him at PIMS Islamabad with the instant revision petition in support of his contention and grounds for condonation of delay in absence whereof it would not be legal and proper to rely upon the verbal submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned appellate court has correctly appreciated the material available on record of the case and rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner being barred by time. No illegality or infirmity is there in the judgment and decree impugned by the petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.