1. Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court whereby the decision of the trial Court was reversed and suit filed by Respondents No. 1 to 5 was decreed in appeal.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this petition are that the Respondents No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter called the "respondents") filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 contending therein; that Muhammad Asghar/ predecessor- in-interest of the respondents purchased disputed property detailed in Para No. 1 of the amended plaint from Malik Muhammad Bashir son of Malik Muhammad Din. From the joint khata of Muhammad Asghar land measuring 89 kanals-11 marlas was confiscated by the Government vide Mutation No. 120 on the basis of Letter No. 10487-C-P-C dated 01.07.1963. In pursuance of impugned mutation of confiscation of land, another mutation of Partition No,. 125 dated 14.4.1964 was entered.
2. The name of Petitioner No. 1 was incorporated in the revenue record, however, Muhammad Asgttar and after his death his legal heirs remained in possession of the disputed property: The Petitioner No. 1 neither interfered into possession of the respondents nor demanded share of produce from the year 1963 onwards. The respondents prayed for declaration that they are owners of the property and there is no decree from any Court for confiscation of their property, therefore, their rights could not be effected. It was also prayed that Petitioner No. 1 has no concern with the property in question; that Mutations No. 120 and 125 through which property was transferred in the name of Petitioner No. 1 are .against law, illegal and ineffective upon rights of the respondents.
3. 3.The sutt was contested by the defendants The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording evidence of the parties the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.6.2010. The respondents challenged the decision in appeal which was accepted and the suit was decreed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2012.
4. 4.At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the civil revision is barred by time and has been instituted with delay of one year and seven months and no sufficient cause for filing the petition with such inordinate delay is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab submits that the matter remained in process for obtaining sanction for filing the revision, therefore, the petition could not be filed within requisite time. Submits that official correspondence takes time and it Would be appropriate if the matter is decided on merits instead of knocking out the petitioners on technical grounds.
5. 5.Arguments heard, record perused.
6. 6.The judgment and decree under challenge was passed on 28-04-2012, period of ninety days elapsed on 27-07-2012, this petition was instituted on 09-09-2013. Therefore, the petition was filed with delay of one year one month and fourteen days. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that no worth considering ground is available with the petitioners for not filing the revision in time. It is stated in the application that matter remained in process officially and for this reason case could not be filed in time.
7. The petitioners for seeking condonation of delay were required to give plausible explanation and there must be sufficient cause on the basis of which delay could be condoned. The law is settled that government functionaries should be more vigilant in pursuing the matter as they have State machinery at their disposal which is not available to an ordinary litigant. The government functionaries are equal before Court and no preferential treatment could be given to them. The administrative delays are normally pleaded in condonation applications, which explanation did not constitute sufficient cause or reasonable ground for condoning the delay rather it amounts to admission of guilt, neglect and inefficiency on their part. Reference in this behalf could be made to the case of Food Department Gujranwala v. Ghulam Fareed Awan (2010 SCM R 1899).
7. 8.A party seeking condonation of delay is under legal duty to explain delay of each and every day and must show their vigilance to avoid such delays. In the case of Province of Punjab through District Officer (Revenue) Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Sarwar (2014 SCM R 1358) it was held that where an aggrieved party sought redressal against the judgment or order through the revisional power of the Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it had 90 days to make an application failing which the application was liable to be dismissed as being barred by time. The argument of learned law officer that petitioners should not be knocked out on technical grounds is not tenable, valuable .rights are created in favour of opposing party if decision is not challenged within limitation period. It was held in the case of Khushi Muhammad through Legal heirs and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi aryl others (PLD 2016 S.0 872) as under: "The purpose of laws of limitation is to establish certainty in the affairs of men, to bring repose and to bring an end to litigation after a certain time period has expired from accrual of an actionable right. Both Sections 5 and 14 of the Act are exceptions to the Laws of Limitation. A person claiming under the aforesaid exceptions must establish that he or she is not disentitled to the discretionary relief which may be awarded by the Court. Therefore, a claimant seeking condonation of delay must explain the delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court, establish that the delay was caused by reason beyond the person's (or counsel's) control and that he was not indolent, negligent or careless in initiating and pursuing the actionable right which had accrued in his favour."
8. 9.Since, the revision was filed with unexplained delay of one year and forty four days, in the light of discussion made above, the delay could not be condoned, the petition is therefore, dismissed as barred by time.