1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 287 and 288 of 1987 which are between the same parties and in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above Civil Revisions are that the respondent filed Suit Nos.
3. 2006 of 1982 and 2005 of 1982, against the applicant for declaration and injunction. The applicants were served but they could not file written statement for a period of two years. The respondents filed application under Order 8, Rule lU, C.P.C. The applications were allowed and suits were decreed under Order 8, Rule 10, C.P.C. By order, dated 2-5-1984.
4. The applicants being aggrieved against the order, dated 2-5-1984 of the XIXth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Filed two separate, appeals being Civil Appeals Nos. 227 and 226 of 1984. These appeals were dismissed in default on 10-8-1986.
5. The applicants filed separate applications under Order 41, rule 10, C.P.C. For re-admission on.5-11- 1986. 'The learned Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissed the application by order, dated 26- 8-1987. The applicants being aggrieved have filed these Civil Revision Applications.
6. 1 have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, Advocate in support of the Civil Revisions and Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate for the respondent. I have perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the appeals were fixed before the Additional District Judge on 26-7-1986.
8. The learned counsel for the applicants moved applications for re-admission. The ground which was taken by him was that he noted in his diary 10-10-1986 instead of 10-8-1986. According to him he could not appear on 10-10-1986, as it was a holiday being Friday. He appeared on 11-10-1980, and when he approached the Court, he found that the appeals were dismissed in default on 10-8- 1986. The learned District Judge found that there is nothing before him to appreciate or disappreciate the statement of the appellant's counsel. This finding was found as the copy of Diary was not annexed to the application. The applications were dismissed as there was no plausible explanation for absence on 10-8-1986. The other ground that no sufficient cause was given for condoning the delay.
9. The provisions of Article 168 of Limitation Act under which applications for re-admission of appeals have to be filed within thirty days from the dismissal of the appeals. Admittedly the appeals were dismissed on 10-8-1986 and the applications were filed on 5-11-1986 are hopelessly barred. It is well-settled that inherent jurisdiction of the Court conferred under section 151, C.P.C. Cannot be invoked where remedy is availed under a specific provision of law. The provision of section 5 .Of Limitation Act are not attracted to applications under Order 41, Rule 10, C.P.C. (See Bundu Shah and others v. Wilayatullah, 1985 SCM R 1305). The reasons for re-admission of the appeals were repelled by the learned Additional District Judge on cogent reasons. I am satisfied that no sufficient cause was shown for the absence of the applicants and their counsel.
10. The learned counsel for the applicants lastly contended that the suits were not maintainable. This contention is devoid of force. Firstly the applicants did not file written statement for a period of two years. Secondly the suit was 'C decreed under Order 8, Rule 10, C.P.C. Thirdly the appeals were dismissed in default. Fourthly section 42 of Specific Relief Act is attracted to cases where plaintiff approaches Court for safeguard of his right to legal character. (See PLD 1978 Lah. 113). .
11. These Revisions are dismissed. In the circumstances I make no order as to costs.