' The precise facts of the case are that suit for declaration filed by the respondent (now represented through LRs) was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2009 and appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.2010. Hence the instant civil revision.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. The perusal of record available on the instant file divulges that the petitioners had applied for obtaining the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned trial Court on 03.11.2009, which was prepared on 10.11.2009, whereas the same was delivered on 14.11.2009, but the appeal was preferred before the learned lower appellate Court by the petitioners on 12.12.2009 with a delay of three days. Although an application for condonation of delay before the learned lower appellate Court has been filed by the petitioners, but the grounds that the certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Was misplaced by some clerical staff cannot be considered to be correct. Neither the name of said official nor any affidavit on his behalf was annexed with the said application to support the grounds mentioned therein and the learned lower appellate Court was perfect while disbelieving the grounds urged by the petitioners for condonation of delay. Moreover, again the attitude of the petitioner remained indolent, who filed the instant civil revision with the delay of twenty days. Along with main case C.M.No, 3-C of 2010 for condonation of delay has been filed without any plausible ground. It is the prime duty of the Court to watch the interest of a litigant and the law of limitation imposes certain restrictions in filing the suits as well as appeals etc. To save the parties from endless litigation. The limitation provided by the statute can only be condoned, if the circumstances enumerated are found to be beyond the control of the litigant and reasons assigned seem to be plausible. The reasons assigned by the petitioners in their application for condonation of delay before the learned lower appellate Court as well as before this Court are not appealable to a prudent man and the same do not provide a valid excuse in filing the lis beyond limitation. It is now well settled that when the lis is not filed within time prescribed by the statute, valuable rights accrue in favour of the opposite party, which cannot be taken away unless strong and convincing ground is shown for condoning the delay. No such sort of explanation is perceptible from the record to exercise indulgence in favour of the petitioners. In the judgment reported as Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another (PLD 2008 SC 462), it has been observed by the apex Court that the appeal having been filed with one day after the period of limitation had created valuable right in favour of the respondents and such delay wasnot condoned as no sufficient cause was found for, filing of the appeal beyond the period of limitation. No sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioners for condonation of delay, who were bound to explain the delay of each and every day in filing of the revision petition, but nothing of such sort has been pleaded in the application for condonation of delay before the learned lower appellate Court and this Court as well. The learned lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners treating the same to be time barred. Similarly C.M.No, 3-C of 2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant civil revision before this Court having no substance is turned down.
4. Consequently, the instant revision petition being barred by time is dismissed.