Through instant petition, the petitioner has assailed vires of order dated 09.06.2 010 and 30.10.2014, parsed by learned Civil Judge and learned Additiona l District Judge Gujranwala respectively , whereby application of petitioner under Section 12(2) CPC was dismissed concurrently .
2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that judgment and decree dated 04.12.1998 regarding property owned and possessed by the petitioner was obtained by Respondents No. 1 to 5 at the back of petitioner . Adds that Respondents No. 1 and 2 are real sisters of petitioner , who were party to the suit but they have no ownership/title in the suit property . Adds that the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) CPC, has not been decided on merits rather he has been knocked out on technical ground of limitation Further submits that Arbitration Award dated 26.06.1997 was fully acted upon and Respondents No. 1 and 2 sold their shares to Respondent No. 3. In the end, he submits that impugned decisions are unsustainable in the eye of law .
3. Conversely , learned counsel for respondents defends the impugned decisions.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that none of pleas raised through instant petition has been taken by petitioner in application under Section 12(2) CPC and even delay has not been explained therein. In the given circumstances, learned revisional Court rightly held that the application to be barred by time almost 08 years by making following observations: "Onus to prove this issue was placed upon the petitioner . Disputed judgment and decree was passed on 04.12.1998 whereas application u/S. 12(2) CPC was filed in 2006 with considerable delay of almost eight years.
Petitioner has not given explicit reason for, delay of such a long period. Parties are related to each other and it does not appeal to reason that petitioner remained unaware of the judgment and decree for a period of about eight years. Contentions of the petitioner are afterthought and unrealistic. Findings oft the learned trial Court on Issue No. 3 are strictly in accordance with law and there is no misreading or non-reading of the evidence. The findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No. 3 are justified. Both the parties are close real relatives. The sale of a property in the area and within family is a talk of the town and it cannot be remained in vacuum when the petitioner is neighbourer to the suit property . The petitioner on a one fine morning awoke from a deep slumber and walked into the Court after more than 08 years witho ut disclosing source of information. The law aids the vigilant and not the dormant. I am in agreement with the same which does not require any interference by this Court thus this issue is decided against petitioner ."
6. So far as petitioner's argument that the award has already been implemented, suffice it to say that said award has never been made rule of Court, therefore, this plea is not sustainable.
7. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below , which have been rendered after correct appreciation of available record and application of relevant law, thus, no interference by this Court, in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, is warranted.
8. In view of the above, instant petition, being devoid of any substance, is dismissed with no order as to costs.