ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---This Civil Revision Petition in terms of section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred as "C.P.C.") arises out of order dated 24.03.2014 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment") passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, (hereinafter "the appellate Court ") while dismissing the appeal under section 96, C.P.C. filed by the appellant upheld the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge-II, Quetta.
2. Epitomized facts necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that the plaintif f/respondent filed a suit for declaration, and permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages before the learned Civil Judge-II, Quetta, against the petitioner/defendan ts with the averments that the plaintif f/respondent has a registered Company with the name and style of Haji Dawood and Company , Government Contractor and General Order Suppliers having office Shops Nos.30, 36 located at New Mission Road, Quetta. The contract of disputed parking area duly awarded in favour of plaintif f/respondent in the year 2008 for the period of three years i.e. 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 to 30.06.201 1. However , during the contract period of, plaintif f/respondent the petitioner/defendants started construction work adjacent at disputed parking area. Construction materials were dumped in the half of disputed parking area due to which plaintif f/respondent suffered loss and who became unable to deposit fee as per agreement. In this regard by means of application for relaxation in depositing parking fee plaintif f/respondent requested to petitione r/defendants but petitioner/ defendants did not pay any heed with request of plaintif f/respondent, however , they served a notice vide dated 20.05.201 1 to the plaintif f/respondent due to non- payment of license fee of three years, the security deposit of plaintif f/ respondent worth of Rs.2,57,358/- has been adjusted against outstanding of plaintif f/respondent. Due to construction work of adjacent of disputed parking area, the plaintif f/respondent suf fered loss of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. The petitioner resisted the suit, being the defendants. While submitting their written statements they controverted the assertions contained in the plaint and taken plea that due to construction work neither the business of the plaintif f/ respondent has affected nor construction materials were dumped in the half period of disputed parking area, however , the plaintif f/respondent has failed to deposit monthly installments and who are under obligation to clear the dues of the petitioner / defendants worth of Rs.1,93,000/. From the divergent pleading of the contesting parties, following multiple issues were framed:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages or he has also to pay Rs.
1,93,000/- to the defendants due against him?
2. Whether the plaintiff, is entitled for the relief claimed for?
3. Relief?
4. After framing of issues, parties to the suit produced their respective evidence and on completion of the same, the suit of the plaintif f/respondent was dismissed and claim of the petitioner/ defendants i.e. Rs.1,93,000/- was also declined vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012.
5. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree to the extent of claim of Rs.1,93,000/- the petitioner/ defendants filed appeal under section 96, C.P.C. before the learned Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2014. Hence this petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.
7. The claim of the respondent/ plaintif f is that due to the construction work of adjacent of the disputed parking area, the plaintif f/respondent suffered loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner/ defendants is that the plaintif f/respondent has failed to deposit monthly installments and who are under obligation to clear the dues of petitioner/defendants worth of Rs.1,93,000/-. The learned trial as well as appellate Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintif f/respondent and also declined the claim of the petitioner/defendants. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner/defendants neither given any particular of the outstanding amount in his written statements nor given any break-up about the outstanding. No documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner/ defendants to the extent of his claim of Rs.1,93,000/-.
8. The appeal filed by the petitioner/ defendants before the appellate Court was also barred by time. The learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment on 28.05.2012 and the petitioner/defendants applied for certified copy on 10.07.2012 which was handed over to him on 16.07.2012 while the appeal has been filed on 31.08.2012. The reason given in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay by the petitioner/defendants before the appellate Court that time was spent in obtaining sanction for filing of appeal is not supported by any document and the same was not suf ficient within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In view of above observations and concurrent findings of both the Courts below , the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants has failed to point out any illigality or irregularity , misreading and lion-reading of the facts in the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial as well as appellate Courts, thus, the petition is dismissed.