ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.----Through this judgment I intend to dispose of above revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree (impugned judgment and decree) dated 23rd November, 2011 of Qazi Bhag District Kachhi (trial court), whereby the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed and against the judgment and decree (impugned judgment and decree) dated 27th March, 2015, of Majlis-e-Shoora, Sibi Division, Sibi (appellate court), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case were that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 / plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, correction of revenue record of Mouza Town Bhag, mutation No. 245, Khasra No. 1964, against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 8, with the prayer: {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The petitioners/ defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement and contested the suit on legal as well as factual grounds and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The respondents Nos.4 to 8/defendants Nos. 3 to 7 filed their joint written statement and conceded the claim of the respondents Nos.1 to 3/ plaintiffs and prayed for decree of the suit.
5. On receiving pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed issues on 4th April, 2009.
6. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs in support of their claim produced two witnesses and got recorded the statement of their attorney. Wherein in rebuttal the petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not produce any witness.
7. The trial court wide impugned judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2009 decreed the suit, which was assailed by the petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in appeal, but the same was also met with the same fate vide impugned order dated 10th September, 2009.
8. The petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed Civil Revision No.(S) 52 of 2009, before this Court, which was accepted vide order dated 3rd June, 2011 by setting aside the judgments of the courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court with direction to proceed with the matter afresh strictly, in accordance with law.
9. The trial court afforded different opportunities to the parties/defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The record transpires that on 5th October, 2011 the learned District Attorney appeared before the trial court, but thereafter remained absent on different dates of hearing, as such on 23rd November, 2011 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte under Order IX, Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
10. Against the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2011, the petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 preferred appeal before Majlis-e-Shoora, Sibi on 21st January, 2015 with the delay of more than three years four months, without any application for condonation of delay. The learned appellate court dismissed the same vide impugned judgment dated 23rd March, 2015 being barred by time, hence this revision petition.
11. Heard learned Assistant Advocate General, respondent No.' 2 (attorney of respondents Nos. 1 and 3) and learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 8, perused the record. The petitioners filed appeal before appellate Court on 21st January, 2015, with the delay of three years eleven months (1425 days) without any explanation.
The record reveals that the representative of petitioners/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the trial court on 21st June, 2011. Record further reveals that on 8th September, 2011, 15th September, 2011 and 21st September, 2011 the representative of petitioners / defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeared. Further, on 28th September, 2011 and 5th October, 2011 the District Attorney was in attendance. It means that the petitioners / defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had knowledge that matter was subjudice before the court. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908: "5. Extension of period in certain cases. Any appeal or application for a revision or a review of judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."
12. The Limitation Act creates a right in favour of the other side if the appeal is time barred. It became the duty of the party who has sought condonation, made application and justify the reason of the delay. Though this Court, has discretionary power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The Government cannot claim to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Commissioner Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmed Khan, 1981 SCMR 37, wherein it was held: "The limitation for filing the petition for special leave to appeal is 60 days and even if the time from 14-3-1975, when the High Court passed the ex parte order against the petitioner, up to the date on which its copy was received in the Department, namely, 5-5-1975 is excluded the petition. is still out of time by nearly 2 months.
The time said to have been spent during which the various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused. This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources a much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants, If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law. See Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji (1970 SCMR 558), The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and others v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah (1979 SCMR 45) and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang N. Dastur and others (1979 SCMR 191)."
13. The petitioners have not filed any application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 before the appellate court. Merely stated that limitation cannot run against the Government. If a party seeks condonation, the same has to explain the delay of each and every day. The petitioners have failed to explain the delay in filing of the appeal before the appellate court. Law of limitation is required to be strictly construed, coupled with the maxim that each day's delay to be explained by the party concerned. Where long period of delay has not been explained. No ground for condonation of delay of 1425 days was made out.
Reliance is placed on the cases of Rehmat Din v. Mirza Nasir Abbas, 2007 SCMR 1560, Collector Land Acquisition Abbotabad v. Fazal-ur-Rehman 2009 SCMR 767, Food Department Gujranwala through its Deputy Director v. Ghulam Fareed Awan, 2010 SCMR 1899 and Federation of Pakistan v. Agritech Limited, PLD 2016 SC 676.
The petitioners have failed to explain inordinate delay of 1425 days delay in filing the revision, therefore, without going into merit of the case the instant revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.