CH. IjAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that petitioners plaintiffs filed a suit on 28-11-1984 for declaration that they are owners in possession of suit land measuring 80 kanals in Khata No. 7 on the basis of registered Adhlapi Kama No. 144 registered on 24-3- 1951 and the respondents/defendants have nothing to do with it. The respondents/defendants filed written statement and controverted the allegations in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties the follow ing issues were framed by the leamed Senior Civil Judge.
Layyah.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in dispute? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of adlapi-nanta registered on 24-3-1951 and have become its owners and its allotment, adjustment in favour of defendants Nos. 26 to 31 by T.D.A. Is illegal, void against facts and ineffective qua the plaintiffs? OPP.
2. The leamed trial Court side his judgment and decree dated 17-7-1991 dismissed the suit. The petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before District Judge, Layyah which was entrusted to the Additional District Judge, Layyah who vide his judgment and decree dated 7-5-1996 dismissed the appeal: hence the present time-barred revision petition along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. The leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners appointed Muhammad Ramzan (......) to puru. Se the case on their behalf as the petitioners are old and sick persons.
Muhammad Ramzan applied for certified copies on 8-5-1996 and copies were prepared on 14-5- 1996 and the petitioners received the copies on 26-5-1996. The petitioners filed revision petition on 13-10- 1996. The petitioners have to file revision petition within 90 days but the petitioners filed revision petition after 152 days meaning thereby the revision petition has become 62 days time- barred. Leamed counsel of the petitioners contended that the petitioners are very old and sick persons and were unable to pursue their case, therefore, they appointed Muhammad Ramzan as their (..... ) to pursue the case on their behalf. The (............ ) filed application for obtaining the certified copies but subsequently fell seriously ill and Doctor advised him to take rest from 26-8-1996 to 8- 10-1996. The petitioners' counsel further contended that application for condonation of delay is duly supported by medical certificate. It is better and appropriate to produce the contents of the medical certificate:- "To whom it may concern. It is certified that I have examined Mr. Muhammad Ramzan s/o Allah Bakhsh. He is suffering from backache. He is advised strict bed rest w.e.f. 26.8.1996 to 8-10-1996 for treatment.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel of the petitioners and it is admitted fact that the certificate of the Doctor did not disclose the date on which the certificate was issued. This fact alone is sufficient to establish that petitioner's was not seriously ill. The disease mentioned in the certificate is also of not such serious in nature that of the petitioners was not in a position to inform the petitioners or contact counsel to file revision petition in time. The petitioner's ( ) filed application for obtaining certified copies on 6-5-1996 w which w ere prepared on 14-5-1996 and received on 26-5-1996. The Doctor advised him bed rest w.e.f. 26-8- 1996 to 8-10-1996. Therefore, it is a case of negligence. The petitioner's to file revision petition immediately after receiving the certified copies on 26-5-1996. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 'Bhoop Khan I. Altai. Settlement Commissioner" (1980 SCM R 782(. The relevant observation is as follows:- "Be that as it may. We are not satisfied that the petitioner was suffering from such malody that it w as so bed ridden as have prevented front being in a position to visit a lawyer for almost two months as claimed".
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Sharif s case (1976 SGMR 173).
Similar proposition was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Abdul Saleem's case (P.L.D. 1976 S.C. 2%) and the relevant observation is as follows: "Having perused the certificate as also having heard the leamed counsel we are not satisfied with the nature of filing was as such as to render petitioner No. 1 completely helpless to establish contact with his counsel particularly when two other co-petitioners have also their interest equally as stake. With him It is the duty and obligation of the petitioners to ask their ( > well in time, whether during the period of his illness he has filed revision petition or not? The petitioners have ample time to ask somebody else as their ( ) to file the revision petition.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, especially in the absence of satisfactory explanation of the delay I decline to condone the same and dismiss the revision petition as barred by limitation.