' This is a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against the order dated 16-1-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 10-10-1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rawalpindi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (who has since died and represented by Ch. Muhammad Asghar and another) was the owner in possession of the land measuring 24 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated in Village Dhoke Noor Dehaati, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, falling within the area of Development Scheme, local limits of Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi. She was ex-land owner of 24 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land which was properly acquired under Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing 1973) and compensation thereof amounting to Rs,32,087.50 was received by her in May, 1974, and the possession of the land was taken over by the department during May, 1974. The respondent was entitled under the policy of the Government of the Punjab to 30% exemption of the acquired land as developed plots in lieu of the land acquired from her. Hence she brought a suit for declaration to the effect that she is entitled to the grant of developed plots equal to 30% of acquired land from her. By way of consequential relief, she prayed that the defendants be perpetually restrained from dispossessing her without compliance of the Government order dated 1-1-1990. In the trial Court, many opportunities were given to the defendants to submit their written statement but they did not avail of those opportunities and ultimately their defence was struck off on 10-10-1991 and after recording the plaintiff's evidence, the suit was decreed. Later on, an application was moved by the petitioner's department for setting aside of the said decree but the same was dismissed on 25-3-1992. No appeal or revision was filed against this order. The petitioner's department filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-10-1991 before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner was never served. But the same was dismissed on 16-1-1993. Hence the present civil revision before this Court.
3. There is no denying the fact that the judgment was announced by the Civil Court on 10-10-1991.
An application for getting its copy was made on 12-10-1991 and the same was delivered on 13-10- 1991. The appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court on 5-5-1992. By any stretch of imagination, the petitioner had the knowledge of the decision of the Civil Judge on 13-10-1991. In this manner, the appeal was clearly time-barred having preferred after more than six months. Even the present revision petition was filed on 17-4-1993 to which certain objections were raised by the office of this Bench and the petitioner was directed to remove the same within two days i,e, on 19- 4-1993.
The petitioner kept the objections with him and re-filed the revision petition after about one year i,e, on 18-4-1994 which was hit by the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 15, C.P.C. Learned Additional District Judge has correctly held that there was no explanation for the delay for the period from 22-3-1992 to 4-5-1992. Each day of delay has to be explained. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence on the plea that the petitioner is a Government Department and it takes time to get sanction of the Controlling Authority and the matter then goes to the Solicitor and after examining the same, instructions are issued to the Advocate-General who further instructs the Government pleader. This is correct but the law is to be followed by all, be it the private persons or the Government Departments. When a party is out of time, valuable rights accrue to the other party which cannot be taken away without sufficient and good reason and each day's delay is to be explained satisfactorily. In the case of Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Nisar 1984 CLC 2310 where contention was that a lot of time was consumed in official correspondence from office to office and reference to Law Division for obtaining sanction to file appeal as such there was no deliberate delay in filing appeal, their Lordships held that the explanation was too general to be accepted. No material was brought on record to show that how much time was taken in inter office correspondence, obtaining copies and then sanction of Law Division. For purposes of condonation of delay, delay of each day has to be explained.
4. The petitioner has thus failed to assign any cogent reason. As such, the order dated 16-1-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, is unexceptionable. Hence the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.