ORDER MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J. - Riaz Ali respondent is a Government servant. During the year 1982 one plot measuring i.e marlas of land was allotted to him for an amount of Rs. 10,798/- by theDeputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Gujranwala (petitioner-defendant) from the quota reserved for the Government servants. He paid the price of the plot. The possession of the plot was delivered to him. He has raised the construction on the plot inclusive of the boundary wall. However, the plot was cancelled from his name vide letter dated 18.3.1987 and the amount of Rs. 10.798/- deposited as its price was confiscated. The reason assigned for the cancellation of plot from his name was that he defrauded the department as the tenure of his service was less than that required by the rules.
2. Feeling aggrieved Riaz Ali respondent-plaintiff instituted his suit on 8.11.1987 wherein he assailed the vires of order dated 18.3.1987 about the cancellation of the allotment and confiscation of its price and prayed for the issuance of a declaratory decree in the matter. The suit was resisted by the petitioners-defendants who contended in the written statement that the suit was not competent, that the plaintiff was estopped from instituting the suit and that the impugned order was perfectly legal.
3. According to the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the suit is not competent in the present form? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to i.e the suit? OPD (3) Whether the impugned order passed by the defendant No. 2 regarding cancellation of plaintiff's allotment is illegal, void and ineffective against the plaintiff's right? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP (5)
Relief.
The parties produced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. After hearing the parties the suit was decreed on 15.5.1994. The appeal preferred by the petitioners-defendants was dismissed on 20.11.1996. The petitioners filed this revision petition on 10.12.1998 wherein they challenged the vires of the concurrent findings of both the learned lower Courts.
4. Under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code a civil revision petition has to be filed within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court. It means that this revision petition is barred by time. The petitioners obtained a certified copy of the judgment passed on 20.11.J.996 by the learned Appellate Court on 15.12.1996. They were intimated by the Solicitor to the Government of the Punjab vide letter dated 14.5.1997 that it is not a fit case for filing the revision petition as it is evident that there is no legal infirmity and that further the prospective remedy has become time- barred.
Thereafter the petitioners again moved the Solicitor to the Government of the Punjab and under his advice this revision petition was filed on 10.12.1998. Since this revision petition is admittedly barred by time an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the petitioners for the condonation of the delay on the ground that the delay has occurred as various authorities examined the matter with a view whether or not revision be tiled and that the petitioners are not at fault.
5. Placing reliance on Deputy Collector of Customs and two others Vi. Muhammad Tahir and another (PLD 1989 S.C. 627) the learned counsel tor the petitioners argued that the conduct of the Senior Clerk of the office of the Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Gujranwala as well as the opinion of the Solicitor to the Government of the Punjab played the part in the matter and that it is a fit case to be further processed with. I do not agree with him. In the aforesaid ruling (PLD 1989 S.C. 627) the petition for leave to appeal by the Government was barred by 101 days and the application for condonation of delay was accepted and the delay was condoned as in that case property valuing over crore of rupees was involved wherein the delay also occurred due to the conduct of the subordinate functionaries oh whose conduct the # higher policy maker functionaries had only a remote physical control. The aforesaid exceptional circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid ruling are not in existence in this matter under disposal.
Riaz Ali respondent-plaintiff was allotted i.e maria plot from Government Quota in consideration for Rs. 10,798/- who has deposited the same and obtained the possession. He has raised the construction inclusive of boundary wall on the plot. Even if his tenure of service was less at the initial time, at present he has crossed that barrier with sufficient more period. The Senior Clerk said to be responsible in the matter was under the direct administrative control of the Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Gujranwala (petitioner). In this case at one stage the Solicitor to the Government of the Punjab gave the opinion that it is not a tit case to i.e the revision petition. In case the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Gujranwala/petitioner-defendant is affirmed by this Court, the (dot shall have to be allotted to some other Government servant. If it is so. Why the same should not remain with Riaz Ali respondent-plaintiff who has paid its price and, raised the construction. Further due to passage of time and stationery trend in the currency even if the market price of the same has gone up. The plot can he allotted to some other person against the price fixed by the Housing and Physical Planning Department, Gujranwala which would be much less. The benefit at present must be availed by Riaz Ali respondent-plaintiff. Hence the aforesaid ruling (PLD 1989 S.C. 627) relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case.
6. I am tempted to express that the general rule with respect to the condonation of delay regarding limitation is incorporated in the ruling published as Commissioner of Income-Tax Kv. Rais Peer Ahmad Khan (1981 SCM R 37) to the effect that the time spent on the deliberations made by the various authorities examining the matter with a view whether or not appeal be filed cannot be excused and the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from any ordinary litigant. Same view was expressed in the ruling printed as The Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, etc. V.v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah (1979 SCM R 45) and in Custodian of Enemy Property Kv. Hushang M. Dastur and others (1979 SCM R 191) wherein it was held that mere fact of valuable rights of petitioners being involved is not by itself a proper ground for condonation of delay of limitation in civil matter. No doubt the dispute with respect to the valuable property worth over crore of rupees was examined by condonation of delay as an exceptional case, the general rule with respect to the ordinary matters of the instant nature in the circumstances enumerated above shall be subject to strict scrutiny of the law of limitation as the law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. Further this petition is barred by time by one year and more than eight months and this aspect of the matter cannot be taken lightly as required and desired by the learned counsel tor the petitioner.
7. I, therefore, dismiss the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of the petitioners and declare that this revision petition is barred by time which, accordingly, is dismissed in limine.