MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.---Through this Civil Revision, the Applicants have challenged the Judgment dated 12.10.1991 and Decree dated 17.10.1991, handed down by the learned Appellate Court (3rd Additional District Judge, Khairpur) in Civil Appeal No,46 of 1986, as a result of which the earlier Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court (Senior Civil Judge-II, Khairpur) in F.C. Suit No,127 of 1984 (old No,66 of 1975) have been set aside.
2. The present Applicants were the Plaintif fs, who earlier filed the above mentioned F.C. (First Class) Suit No,127 of 1984, against the present Respondents. The present Applicants in the Suit sought a relief that the earlier order dated 28.05.1975, passed by Deputy Commissioner , Khairpur (present Respondent No,12) be declared as void ab initio, because as a result of this order , as per the Applicants' averments, the Applicants have been prejudiced and this order adversely affected the proprietary rights of present Applicants in respect of lands falling in survey Nos,2074, 1035, 1036, total measuring 04-38 Acres, situated in Deb Khanpur , as well as landed property falling in survey Nos,1038, 1548, 1554 and 1037, total area comprising of 09-02 Acres, in same Deh Khanpur .
3. Mr. T. David Lawrence, Counsel representing the Applicants, argued that the impugned Judgment and Decree suffer from illegality and are violative of the provisions relating to the Judgments required to be passed by the Appellate Courts , inter alia, as mentioned in Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C. It is further argued that the order dated 28.05.1975 of the Respondent No,12 is coram non judice , as at the relevant time, the said Deputy Commissioner could not have acted as an Additional Settlement Commissioner , in view of the repealment of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitatio n) Act, 1958, by the Repealing Act, viz. Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. It has been argued that the said Respondent No, 12 (Deputy Commissioner) was not a notified Of ficer in terms of the Act and could not have reopened the past and closed transaction.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A.M. Mobeen Khan, learned counsel representing Respondents Nos,1 to 7, has controverted the arguments put forth by the Applicants. According to learned coun sel for the private Respondents, under the Martial Law Regulation 89/91, at that relevant time, the person was allowed to repurchase the surrendered land. It was further argued that earlier also, the lands in question were illegally allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of present Respon dents, namely , Wahid Bux Shah, who later sold to one Abu Muhammad.
It was a result of collusiveness of Rehabilitation Authorities and the said Respondents. Besides this, the learned counsel for the Respondents has raised a serious law point about the maintainability of present civil revision on the ground of limitation. He contended that the impugned Judgment and Decree is of 12.10.1991 and 17.10.1991, respectively; and if the record available in the file is perused, it is quite clear that the certified copy was delivered to the Applicants on 26.11.1991, but the present civil revision was filed on 20.06.1992, much after the 90 days period prescribed for preferring the revision of the nature.
5. Learned counsel for the private Respondents in order to augment his arguments has placed reliance on, inter alia, Rule 323 of the Sindh Civil Court Rules, concerning the preparation of certified copies as well as the following three reported decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court.
1. PLD 1984 Supreme Court page 208 [Mst. Jamila Khatoon and another v . Mst. T ajunissa and others ]
2. 2006 SCMR page-676 [City District Government, Lahore v . Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin ]
3. 2007 SCMR page-1446 [Atta Muhammad v . Mania Bakhsh and others ]
6. Since, a crucial issue with regard to the maintainability of this civil revision is involved, therefore, before proceeding further , it should be decided first.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicants has argued that there is plethora of case law that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities. He has relied upon the Judgment in the case of Government of N. W.F. -P. and others v. Abdul Malik reported in 1994 SCMR page-833 , in support of his arguments that while entertaining a revision, the limitation prescribed for the same ought to be considered liberally and not otherwise.
8. The undisputed fact borne out from the record is that the Judgment was pronou nced on 12.10.1991 followed by the Decree dated 17.10.1991 and the application for certified copy was filed on 14.10.1991 as evident from the stamp of the concerned Court Officer. Other formalities were completed by 26.11.1991 and finally the copy was delivered on the same date (26.1 1.1991). Even if the time frame is liberally calculated and interpreted as argued by learned counsel for the Applicants, present revision should have been filed by 27 February 1991, but admittedly the same is filed on 20.06.1991, that is, after seven months. No plausible reason has been given by the Applicants' side for this delay of four months.
9. The case law cited by the learned counsel representing their respective parties, have been taken into the account. The reported decision relied upon by the Applicants' side lends hardly any support to their case as the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the said reported case, that though civil revision can be filed after the prescribed period of 90 days and the condonation of delay of the limitation period will be liberally construed, provided an Applicant / Petitioner makes out a good case for condoning the delay , otherwise it will prolong the agony of the adversary . The Applicant of the reported Judgment raised the defence that Government Departments had to comply with their internal procedure, which was time consuming, and, therefore, the delay should be condoned, which plea was rejected by the Honourable Supreme Court and the civil revision was dismissed. As against that, subsequent Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in City District Government case (supra), while relying upon its earlier decision, has clearly ruled that civil revision should be filed within 90 days; in the said reported Judgment, a civil revision was filed only after 8 days of the prescribed time, which was not condoned by the Honourable Apex Court and the leave was refused. In the second Judgment of Atta Muhammad (ibid), the Honourable Supreme Court has dilated upon the significance of limitation law; object of which is to provide an element of certainty in the conduct of human affair. In this case also, it was held that since the main suit for Declaration was a time barred claim, therefore, the Respondents were not entitled to any relief and the Appeal of the Applicants, who were Defendants in the Suit; was allowed. The first case of Mst. Jamila Khatoon (supra) has dealt in detail the scope of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act,1908, and that of Section 5. Crux of this Judgment is that time consumed in obtaining copy of the Judgment has to be excluded while calculating the limitation, provided that a litigant should be vigilant in pursuin g his remedy and it is his duty to promptly supply the stamp and comply other requisites while obtaining the copy from the copying agency of the Court. In this reported case, the plea of Appellants' counsel was repelled, that delay in obtaining certified copies was attributed to the staff of the copying branch, who did not call upon the Appellants to furnish the stamp.
10. As per learned counsel for the Respondents, the delay of 39 days from the date of application from obtaining the certified copies of the impugned Judgment and other documents, and delivery of the same on 26.11.1991, should be attributed towards the present Applicants as act of their negligent attitude in filing the instant civil revision after expiry of limitation period. Thus, as per Respondents' plea the present Revision is barred by five months and not four months. This argument is not accepted in view of the observations contained in the preceding paragraphs about the limitation period.
11. In a recent Judgment of Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others reported in PLD 2016 Supreme Court page-712, it has been held that law of limitation being a positive law has to be considered. It was further clarified that defence of limitation is not a mere technicality . In this decision, the scope of revision proceedings has been explained in detail. It is further held, that the impugned order will not be set aside, merely because the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction might have come to some other conclusion. It is further observed that revisional Court should only exercise its jurisdiction in favour of those, who cautiously pursue their rights and not those who sleep over them, which conduct would indubitably disentitle such person to discretionary relief.
12. The arguments of Applicants' counsel about condonation of delay would have substance, had his clients / present Applicants were kept in dark about the proceeding, but they being themselves the Plaintif fs in the aforementioned suits and Respondents in the above Appeal, are unable to make out a case for condonation of delay , inter alia, as no material is brought on record in support of their request that delay of four months should be excused for any reason / factor beyond the control of the Applicants. Consequently , this civil revision being a time barred one is dismissed, with no order as to costs.