This litigation is inter se the family members, out of whom Respondent No. 1 instituted suit for partition of joint property against the petitioners and being aggrieved of order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, present petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 435/2019 before the learned District Court, Lahore, which was dismissed on 28.05.2019. Although it was not assailed before any forum however , Petitioners No. 1 & 2 preferred review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, 1908 for setting aside of said order before the same Court, which declined on the score of limitation through impugned order dated 01.02.2020, hence this civil revision.
2, Heard and record scanned.
3. Undisputedly , the petitioner at their own preferred afore-noted civil revision and after availing right of audience, it finally failed on 28.05.2019. As per law, 90 days were available to the petitioner s to make an application for its review , but they without filing application for condonation of delay tabled review application on 30.09.2019 much beyond prescribed period of limitation. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the days consumed for obtaining certified copies were to be excluded, but without making any drill Work to this effect, the impugned order was passed, is not well-founded and when with his able assistance the record was consulted to adjudge that how many days were consumed, it appeared that order under review was passed on .28.05.2019, whereas after losing 87 days on 24.08.2019, Application Form No. 29787 was filed before the concerned agency for having attested copy, which delivered on 31.08.2 019, while after losing another 29 days, the review petition was made on 30.09.2019, as such it, on the face of record, was beyond prescribed 90 days. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners that law favours adjudicatio n of cases on merit and technicalities should be avoided to dispense with justice, as such the Court at its own could condone the delay is not tenable. It is well settled that submission of formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is essential for enabling a Court to, if at all, condone the delay in filing such like petition and without it, there could be no power to excuse the delay , which cannot be condoned by resort even to the inherent powers provided u/S. 151 of the Code, 1908. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on the judgments reported as Ansar Burney vs. Federation of Pakista n and others (1984 SCMR 200)
Mullah Ahmed vs: Assistant Commissioner , Sibi and 7 others (1986 SCMR 1624 ), Messrs Qureshi Salt & Spices Industries, Khushab and another vs. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi through President and 3 others (1999 SCMR 2353 ), Government of Baluchistan, Public Health Engineering Department through Secretary , {Administrative Head) Project Director , Akra Kour Dam Project, Baluchistan, Quetta vs. (2000 SCMR 1028 ) and Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. vs. Honda (Sarhad) (Put) Ltd. and others (PLJ 2005 SC 1002). Furthermore, the said count cannot be taken as technicality , rather it goes to very roots of the case and once on said lapse, vested right is accrued to the Adversary , it cannot be taken away easily thereafter . The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to persuade that any wrong, material irregularity or illegality was committed by the learned lower Revisional Court to pass the impugned order , rather it was rendered while application of judicious mind and exercising the jurisdiction so vested. This petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.