1. ' At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that, admittedly this civil revision was filed beyond the period of limitation, but he stressed that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are illegal, unlawful; hence no limitation runs against void order.
2. ' I am afraid with the contention of the petitioners, because a procedure of filing of civil revision envisaged under Section 115, CPC for which statutory period of 90-days, by Act VI of 1992, CPC (Amendment) Act, 1992, w,e,f, 24.05.1992 has been provided, and when the petitioners admitted that they were well within the knowledge of judgment and decree dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, due to which they applied for obtaining certified copies, and the same were also delivered to them on 07.10.2016. But even then they have filed this civil revision with such an inordinate delay for which no justification, reason has been given by the petitioners, except that no limitation runs against void order. The contention of the petitioners is not appealable to this Court. The Department has not given any preference over a layman, especially, when no plausible explanation was given by the petitioners for filing of time-barred case.
3. 3.It is also observed by, this Court that the conduct of the petitioners-Department is also very indolent and negligent. In the trial Court, when an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against them of 03.04.2015. Being aggrieved, they have filed an appeal on 20.09.2016 against the said ex-parte judgment, which is also a time-barred appeal; therefore, the learned appellate Court has no option, except to dismiss the time-barred appeal. Same circumstances occurred before this Court.
4. 4.In these circumstances, it seems that the Department, itself, does not want to pursue this case and deliberately filed a time-barred appeal and revision before two consecutive forums; therefore, I found no reason to interfere in the judgments and decrees, passed by the lower Courts.
5. 5.Reluctantly, C.M. No, 2-C of 2017, seeking con donation of delay is dismissed. As delay has not been condoned; therefore, main civil revision petition also stands dismissed.