SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---The instant Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.2.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Charsadda at Tangi whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tangi decreeing the suit, was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Concisely stating facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents brought a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of a house situated in Mouza Quaid Abad Tehsil Tangi in Khasra Nos,1637 and 1638 boundaries whereof were described in the head note of the plaint, and that the petitioners are residing in the said house as tenant under them, and that the petitioners/defendants have got no right to deny the ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. As a consequential relief, the respondents/ plaintiffs sought issuance of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from denying the ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs and from alienating the suit property they also sought possession of the suit house. After service of summons, the respondents appeared before the court and contested the suit by filing written statement. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, 11 issues were framed and the parties were directed to produce their evidence. On the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 30.10.2010, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiff. Not contended with the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Charsadda which was marked to the learned Additional District Judge Charsadda at Tangi for disposal. The learned appellate court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 03.02.2011 on the ground of limitation, hence this revision petition.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners/defendants are illiterate; that they could not file appeal within prescribed time due to ignorance of law, therefore, delay in filing appeal could have condoned; that on merits, prima facie, the petitioners have got from strong arguable case and the learned appeal court instead of deciding the appeal on the ground of limitation should have decided the matter on merits.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that person seeking condonation of delay must explained delay of each and every day; that ignorance of law is no excuse; that the petitioner had not submitted any application for condonation of delay before the learned appeal court and that the delay cannot be condoned suo motu, therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the learned appellate court on the ground of limitation.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reflects that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 30.10.2010 in Civil Suit No,76/1. The petitioners filed application for issuance of certified copy on 16.11.2010 and received the same on 27.11.2010, and filed appeal on 18.12.2010. This appeal is barred by six days.
There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners received the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 27.11.2010 and filed appeal on 18.12.2010, they could have filed appeal before the court within 30 days as they were in possession of the certified copy of the judgment, but kept the same with them till 17.12.2010. The delay in filing the appeal before the learned appeal court seems to be due to negligence and carelessness of the petitioners who failed to pursue their cause with due diligence and care as such they are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. It is now settled law that a person seeking condonation of delay must explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the court and should also establish that delay has been caused due to reasons beyond his control. In the instant case, the delay in filing the appeal was neither explained nor any application for condonation of delay was filed before the learned appeal court, therefore, the appeal was rightly held to be barred by time and rightly dismissed by the learned appellate court.
In this respect, Reference may be made on the cases reported as Raheem Bakhsh v. Pathani (PLD 1985 SC 324) and Sheikh Muhammad Saleem v. Faiz Ahmad (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 628).
For what has been discussed above, the revision petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.