' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through the instant revision petition, petitioners have called in question the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012 of the learned Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad whereby the appeal filed by respondents against the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2011 of the learned Civil Judge-IX Abbottabad was dismissed.
2. In essence, a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession was instituted by respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/ defendants, fully described in the heading of the plaint, which was contested by the petitioners by filing their respective written statements, wherein numerous legal and factual objections were raised over the maintainability of the suit. The required issues were framed in the suit by the learned trial court and thereafter at the conclusion of trial it was partially decreed in favour of the respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2011, however, for rest of the prayer the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, who, after ex-parte proceedings, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondents as prayed for, hence, the instant civil revision by the petitioners/defendants.
3. In the earlier round of litigation, this court while accepting the civil revision set-aside the impugned judgments of the courts below and remanded the case back to the learned appellate court with direction to decide it on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law within one month positively, whereagainst the respondents / plaintiffs preferred Civil Petition before the Apex Court which was converted into Appeal and.On 11.12.2014 while accepting the CPLA, the Apex Court remanded the case back to this court for decision afresh in accordance with law.
3.(sic) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned judgments are against law and facts on records; that the impugned judgments are the result of misreading and nonreading of evidence, whereas the learned courts below have felled in error of law which has occasioned great miscarriage of justice.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, supported the impugned judgments and argued that both the courts below after proper appreciation of law and evidence, have rendered findings on facts which cannot be interfered with by this court while no misreading or nonreading of evidence was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. The record reveals that the suit property was entered in record of rights of the year 1931-1932, proportionately in the name of predecessor-in-interest of both the parties on the basis of mutation No,225 dated 15.11.1929.
7. The mutation No,225 dated 15.11.1929 reveals that the suit property comprising of old Khasra Nos.62, 63, 64 and 66 were excluded by the then Revenue Officer therefrom the share of Khan Bahadar son of Sabz Ali but even then the concerned Revenue Officials while giving effect to the mutation No, 225 in record of rights did not exclude the suit property therefrom the share of predecessor-in-interest of petitioner namely, Khan Bahadar and the same remained intact without any objection on behalf of respondents, but the same error/mistake or wrong entries in record of rights were challenged by the original respondents/plaintiffs of institution of Suit No,1037/1 on 09.04.1999, thereafter when petitioners filed an application under Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act for partition of the suit property.
8. The record further reveals that possession over the suit land had remained with the contesting respondents.
9. The contention of the learned counsel that the predecessor-ininterest of respondents namely, Khan Bahadar was occupancy tenant over the suit land along with predecessor in interest of contesting respondents and on account of Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, occupancy/tenancy were converted into ownership, therefore, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, alongwith the predecessor in interest of contesting respondents have become full owners to the extent of their respective share is misconceived.
10. Not a single revenue paper was produced during the course of trial of the suit that predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners was ever remained on the suit property as an occupancy tenant, however, it has been proved by contesting respondents that the suit property was mortgaged with predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondents, being occupancy tenant which was converted to his full ownership by operation of law as mentioned hereinabove.
11. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit of respondents was time barred, being instituted more or less 65 years, thereafter the entries in record of rights in the year 1931-32 is also not tenable as no period of limitation would run against wrong entries in record of rights and such wrong entries could not either confer or extinguish proprietary rights of rightful owner in any immovable property. Each and every wrong entry in periodical record give fresh cause of action to the person against whom such entries were effected subject to the sole condition if he is in possession of the property concerned.
12. It is also worth to mention herein that petitioners are not the sole legal heirs of Khan Bahadar, while the proforma respondents are also the legal heirs of late Khan Bahadar, who had filed their cognovits in favour of the original respondents/ plaintiffs and had admitted their claim over the suit property and on account of their admissions partial decree had already been passed in favour of original respondents by the learned trial court which has not been challenged by petitioners or the proforma respondents which give a strong inference in favour of original respondents in regard to their genuineness of their claim as alleged in their pleadings.
13. The learned counsel for contesting respondents vehemently agitated the objection over the maintainability of the instant revision petition in view of the provisions contained in Section 115, C.P.C. And placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court reported as 2014 SCM R 1358 titled "Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Sarwar, PLD 2013 SC 489 titled "Hasnain Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Akbar" and 2002 SCM R 671 titled "Azhar-udDin v. Aqeel Ahmad Khan".
14. The record reveals that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned appellate on 24.04.2012 while the attested copies of the same have been delivered to the petitioners on 07.01.2013 on the same day when the application for the purpose was moved whereas the instant revision petition has been filed on 16.01.2013, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days envisaged thereunder Section 115, C.P.C. Itself.
15. It is to be noted that petitioners themselves in their memo of revision in para-5 in categorical terms have admitted that the impugned judgment had been passed by the learned appellate court below thereafter affording full opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, the question or objection on behalf of the petitioners that they were not properly served and the impugned judgment was the result of ex-parte arguments of learned counsel for the respondent is out of consideration, being based on wrong assumption of facts.
16. The learned appellate court has also very clearly mentioned in his impugned judgment that learned counsel for both the contestifig parties have been heard, which carries presumption of genuineness and truth, being judicial proceedings.
17. In case titled "Province of Punjab District Officer Revenue Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Sarwar" 2014 SCM R 1358 the apex court is held as under:- "Where an aggrieved person sought redressal against the judgment or order through the Revisional Powers of the court under Section 115, C.P.C., it had ninety (90) days to make such application, failing which the application was liable to be dismissed (as being time barred) ."
18. In the case titled "Hasnain Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Akbar and another" PLD 2013 SC 489 the apex court is held as under:- "Where the time (period) had been fixed by a statute the court had no power and discretion at all to enlarge/extend time (period) unless it was provided otherwise and it was permitted by or under the law. "
19. However, it has been held in the case of "Mst. Gohar Taja V. Saud and others reported as 2003 YLR 1994 that the time spent during obtaining attested copies to be excluded therefrom counting of period of limitation but in the case in hand,even if the days spent in obtaining the attested copies i.e, one day only, even then the instant revision has been filed eight (08) months and sixteen (16) days, thereafter the prescribed period of limitation which could not be condoned on evasive grounds without any cogent proof that petitioners were not heard by the learned appellate court.
20. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the instant revision 1E petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.