1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-5-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan, whereby he dismissed the appeal in limine as barred by limitation.
2. This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 2-12-1990 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff with no order as to costs.
3. 2.The brief facts of the matter are that Abdul Bari (respondent-plaintiff) filed a suit against the Government of the Punjab and others (petitioners-respondents) for the issuance of mandatory injunctions for giving him a plot of 14 Marlas in the Low Income Housing Scheme in lieu of his acquired land. The plaintiff alleged that the Housing and Physical Planning Department launched the Low Income Housing Scheme and his land measuring four Kanals was included in the said Scheme. He was allowed Plot No,21-A measuring 10 Marlas whereas he was entitled to a plot of 24 Marlas. He alleged that his entitlement was to the extent of 30% of the acquired land. The suit was contested and as many as 3 issues were framed and finally decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 2- 12-1990. The defendants then filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the point of limitation on 15- 5-1991. The defendants applied for the copy of the said order on 2-11-1993, which was delivered on the same day but this revision petition was filed on 12-1-1994. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed with the revision petition.
4. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that the delay in filing the revision petition was due to official routine and as a valuable right was involved, the delay in filing the revision might be condoned. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same ground was mentioned for condonation of delay, Meanwhile, the respondent also moved an application for dismissal of the application moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act and for consequent dismissal of the revision petition being grossly time-bared by 920 days with no reasonable grounds for condonation.
5. 4.The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Government was not entitled to any preferential treatment as compared to the ordinary citizens and there was no reasonable cause for condoning such a long delay. In this regard he placed reliance on the cases of commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCM R 37) and The Province of West Pakistani Lahore v. Mian Noor Ahmad and others (1975 SCM R 91).
6. 5.Under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 115, C.P.C. a revision petition must be made within 90 days of the decision of the subordinate Court. In the instant case, the revision petition is barred by 877 days and the explanation that the time was consumed due to official routine for getting the sanction from the Government is not a valid ground for the condonation of such a long delay. It is not understandable as to why the copy of the order of the learned Additional District Judge was applied for after about 2-1/2 years and again why the revision petition was not immediately filed on receipt of the copy on 2-11-1993. There was no justification for the petitioner to wait till 12-1-1994 after the receipt of the copy of the impugned order. In the case of Water and Power Development Authority v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354) the Supreme Court held as under:-- "In such a context, however, the sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, injustice done to the petitioner shall be perpetuated and thereby he shall suffer an irreparable loss caused by the impugned, order. Learned Tribunal held that the law on the point, however, is well settled that after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed, the door of justice is closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of any avail unless the delay is properly explained and accounted for. For these reasons the application for condonation of delay was rejected and, consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order."
7. 6.It is pertinent to observe here that the trend to grab public property and public money has become the order of the day and has increased manifold. Those who have no conscience leave no chance' to usurp Government property and loot the national exchequer because it is easy to manoeuvre the same with the active connivance of the concerned officials. On the contrary, it is very difficult to deprive an individual of his property, hard-earned money or rights because he will fight with full force till last. While where the Government property is trespassed, occupied unlawfully, grabbed, the department and officials, who are made watch-dog and custodian of public property, sleep over the matter until the period of limitation expires. Instead of being more vigilant and efficient they fail to bring their cause or defend the same before the competent forum well within time.
8. 7.This is high time that the government should take the notice of this situation and check the causes of delay and take appropriate action against the negligent and delinquent officials. Such lapses are usually due to the grant of intentional concession or un-intentional inefficiency on the part of the concerned officials. They though paid from the national exchequer to watch the interest of the Government, fail to perform their duties for either of the above reasons. In all such cases, a liability be fixed and the responsible person be brought to book. The loss so caused to the public exchequer by their intentional or unintentional negligence or otherwise should be made good from them. After all how long is this country going to suffer at their hands.
9. 8.Copy of this judgment be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of the Country who shall issue necessary directions/instructions in this regard to all the heads of the departments under their control. They shall also chalk out a policy and evolve adequate measures to check and curb this highly objectionable and criminal tendency.
10. 9.As far as the revision petition is concerned, it is dismissed being barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.