QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.- The revision petition under Section 115 CPC of the petitioner , Mozam Khan against the concurrent findings of learned trial Court/Civil Judge-II, Lahor , Swabi dated 20.12.201 1, whereby his suit for recovery of Rs.315400/- was dismissed and that of learned appellate Court/Additional District Judge Lahor , Swabi dated 25.10.2012, whereby appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.03.2017, on the ground that counsel for both the parties were served in person but neither the parties, including the petitioner , nor counsel for the parties, including counsel for the petitioner were present, despite their personal service.
2. After more-than four months of dismissal of revision petition for want of prosecution on 29.03.2017, the petitioner moved application for restoration of the revision petition on 20.8.2017 i.e beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days, mainly, on the ground that no notice was served for the date fixed on the counsel for the petitioner as well as on the petitioner and that they had no knowledge of the date fixed and further that the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner got knowledge of the impugned order on 24.07.2017 and applied for attested copy of the order on the same date; hence application for restoration of the revision petition dismissed for want of prosecution, along with application for condonation of delay on similar grounds.
3. When confronted with service of notice on him for 29.03.2017, the learned counsel candidly admitted his signature on the notice; which would, as such, belie his assertion that neither he nor the petitioner were served and that they had no knowledge of the date fixed i.e. 29.03.2017.
4. Even otherwise, the application for restoration of the revision petition is hopelessly time barred , having been moved beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e.30 days, with no reason, let alone plausible reason, for the inordinate delay in filing the application for restoration of the revision petition, and the application for condonation of delay .
5. Consequently, both the applications for restoration of the revision petition and application for condonation of delay are dismissed in limine, being devoid of merit.