' Through this revision petition, petitioner has assailed judgment and decree, dated 24-7-1993 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore dismissing the petitioner's suit and judgment and decree, dated 15-2-1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing petitioner's appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents opened the arguments objecting to the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground of being barred by limitation and submitted the following facts in the chorological order:--- ' Date Proceedings 12-2-1996 Decree and judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing petitioner's suit.
16-5-1996 Present revision petition filed.
13-6-1996 Returned by office with one objection "to flag and page mark according to the Index" and for removal of objection within seven days' limitation.
1-10-1996 Received back by counsel's clerk after 109 days.
23-10-1996 Petition re-filed after removal of objection after another 21 days.
6-11-1996 Office objection that petition, now time-barred as per PLJ 1996 Lahore 1263.
17-11-1996 Received back.
18-11-1996 Re-filed by the petitioner relying on 1992 SCMR 1059 and PLD 1990 SC 859.
2-12-1996 Office objections that:
(i) Petition time-barred.
(ii) Application under section 5 of Limitation Act be filed.
(iii) Judgments relied upon vide note, dated 18-11-1996 do not help the petitioner.
14-1-1997 File received back and re- filed along with application for condonation of delay.
11-2-1997 Petition admitted subject to objection of limitation.
3. On the basis of above sequence of events, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petition is hopelessly time-barred and it was so rendered owing to indolence, inordinate delay and lack of vigilance in removing the office objections within the given time. Reliance has been placed on the principles pronounced in the judgments of this Court reported as PLD 1996 Lahore 702, PLD 1996 Lahore 158 and PLD 1996 Lahore 702. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no plausible explanation has' been given in the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act for each and every day of delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitting the above statement of facts contended that petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay for the reason stated in para. 7 of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act reliance thereto has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1992 SCMR 1059 and PLD 1990 SC 859.
5. I have given my serious consideration to the arguments of the parties, and the sequence of events/facts on record. The facts and events above reproduced have not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Instead, they have been expressly admitted and are also supported by the case record and office objection sheet thereto. The only questions, therefore, left to be determined are as to whether the petitioner can avail of the principles laid down in the, .
Above-cited Supreme Court's judgments and as to whether the petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay on the basis of explanation of personal problems of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
' Examination of the contents of the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act; 1908 reveals that after stating the sequence of events in his own manner and form, the , factual ground for occurrence of delay was stated in under-quoted paras. Nos.7 and S of the application:- --
7. "That the petitioner is an illiterate villager and does not know the technicalities of the procedure.
He engaged counsel who practises in this Hon'ble Court. Unfortunately, the only son of the counsel is in jail as undertriil prisoner since 16-1-1996, in a murder case and due to the investigation of case at Bhakkar and Sargodha, and the trial at Bhakkar, he had not-been regular in his office at Lahore and for that reason all this missings has happened.
8. That the revision petition was originally instituted in time any delay in refiling of the case after removing objection is due the unfortunate circumstances, of the counsel for the petitioner."
6. I have sympathetically attended to the events of personal misfortune befalling the family of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which in crux was that son of the learned counsel for the petitioner was in jail as under trial prisoner since 16-1-1996 in a murder case and that owing to the investigation and trial at Bhakkar and Sargodha, he had not been regular at his Lahore office.
7. Be that as it may, if a 399 pages revision petition (along with documents) can be filed on 16-5- 1996 by the learned counsel for the petitioner after attending to all the aspects involved in the matter, why could not the learned counsel or iris staff received the same back immediately after office objection on 13-6-1996. Furthermore, above objection, dated 13-6-1996 related only to "the flagging and page marking,". Which in ordinary course of business could have been removed in a short time by an office clerk. Instead, clerk of learned counsel received back the file after 102 days and objection was removed after another 21 days. Total period thus consumed was 123 days.
Receiving back and removing such an objection could not have interfered in the investigation or trial of the son of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is noteworthy that though the learned counsel for the petitioner has signed the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, yet has opted not to file his affidavit in support thereof and this application is accompanied by petitioner's affidavit. Furthermore, each and every day of such a long delay and inaction has not been satisfactorily explained. In the case of "Faiz Rasool v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue" (1992 SCMR 1059), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan did hold that "the flagging of the orders and page marking of the Index could be done in the office itself by counsel,for the appellant", but in the present case, objection sheet, dated 13-6-1996 was received by the Clerk of learned counsel on 1- 10-1996 (after over three and a half months) and refiled on 23-10-1996. Similarly, after objection, dated 6-11-1996, petition was filed on 18-11-1996 and on objection, dated 2-12-1996 to file application for condonation of delay, the same was filed on 14-1-1997. As such, the petitioner cannot avail himself of principles of Faiz Rasool's case. Similarly, pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Hanif's case reported as PLD 1990 SC 859 relates to late supply of copies of lower Courts judgments and decree for conversion of revision petition into appeal and later removal of objections viz. Revision.
8. In the judgment by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Naheed Ahmad v. Asif Riaz and others reported as PLD 1996 Lahore 702, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was observed that:-- "The combined reading of the two Rules noted above would show that while in the first appeal the time for removing the objection or matters connected herewith is to be fixed by the Court, the same duty is enjoined on and performed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court in relation to the second appeal, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the time fixed by the office under the overall supervision of the Deputy Registrar of this Court is to be strictly adhered to because the limitation for filing the appeal having begun to run cannot be stopped or supplemented by act of commission or omission of the appellant unless it be a case of disability as envisaged under the have therefore, the period of time taken beyond the time specified by the office would neither be excluded nor added to the limitation while computing the limitation for filing the appeal The appellant on the other hand, exhibited very casual attitude in regard to the serious objections of limitation which cannot be blessed with the discretion of the Court. We are fortified in this view by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Manzoor Hussain and others v. Sajawal and others (1983 SCMR 465) and the various judgments of this Court as noted above. The rule of law laid down in all these judgments is to the effect that the time fixed by the Deputy Registrar/office of this Court for collecting and refiling the appeal should be strictly adhered to and if appeal or petition is not filed with in time limited by the Deputy Registrar/office, the same shall be deemed to have been presented on the date when it is refiled and if in the meanwhile the same had become barred by limitation, the delay in refilling the appeal shall not be condoned unless a reasonable explanation is given therefore."
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act which is rejected in absence of a plausible explanation of each and every day of delay. As a result thereof, this revision petition is also rejected. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Revision rejected.