Through this writ petition the petitioners assail the judgments/ decrees/orders, dated 7-6-1990, 22- 3-1994 and 12-2-2001 passed by Additional District Judge and Civil Judge, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that Jaffar, respondent No.1, filed a suit for performance of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the petitioner on 15-10-1988 in respect of agricultural land measuring 22 Kanals situated in Chak No.627/GB, Jaranwala. The suit was contested. The agreement to sell has been denied. An ex parte decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jaranwala on 7-6-1990. According to the petitioners, they came to know about the decree and, therefore, they moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 14-7-1991 on the ground that the ex parte decree, dated 7-6-1990 has been obtained by fraud upon the petitioners and the Court. The application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed on 22-3-1994.
3. The petitioners tiled Revision Petition No.30-14 of 2000 before the Additional District Judge, Jaranwala against the order, dated 22-3-1994, whereby the application tiled by the petitioners under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed. Alongwith the said revision petition an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed before the learned Additional District Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that ex parte judgment and decree, dated 7-6- 1990 of the Civil Judge, Jaranwala was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, the petitioners moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the trial Court which was dismissed on 22-3-1994, and thereafter, the petitioners tiled the revision petition before the Additional District Judge, which has been illegally dismissed by him. Further submits that despite the fact that application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved, the delay has not been condoned by the learned Additional District Judge.
5. To my mind the points for consideration in this writ petition are that whether the revision petition tiled before the learned Additional District Judge was maintainable and whether the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been made applicable to revision application moved under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. .
6. By virtue of proviso added by the Act VI of 1992 in section 115, C.P..C. Revision application has to be made within 90 days of the decision of the subordinate Court. Revision application tiled beyond prescribed period of limitation would not be entertainable. Reliance is placed on Deputy Commissioner, Pishin v. Abdul Salam and others PLD 1993 Quetta 121, Mirza A.I Asghar v. Qadeer Ahmad 1993 CLC 1869 and Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCM R 286.
Delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned as section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable in accordance with section 29 of the Limitation Act on the revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Thus, application moved by the petitioners before the Additional District Judge under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in tiling of the revision petition was not entertainable as held in the case reported as Mirza A.I Asghar v. Qadeer Ahmad 1993 CLC 1869.
Even otherwise, once the case is decided by .The Court in its revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, it is not permissible under the law to challenge the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court. See Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others PLD 1985 SC 131. The petitioners are themselves to be blamed to file the revision petition against the order dismissing their application vide order, dated 22-3-1994 by Civil Judge, Jaranwala under section 12(2), C.P.C. After lapse of about four years and that too without any reasonable explanation.
Resultantly this writ petition fails, which is dismissed in limine.