' Ahmad Nawaz and 7 others filed suit for declaration etc. In the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nowshera. The said suit was resisted by respondents by filing written statement. The learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues and posted the case for evidence of the plaintiffs. The respondents in their written statement had raised preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiffs was hit by principles of res judicata. 13-12-103 was the date fixed for arguments on the question as to whether the case was hit by the principles of res judicata. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that since the previous suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. On merits, therefore, the suit in hand was not hit by the principles of res judicata. The petitioners/defendants being aggrieved of the order, dated 13-12- 1993 has filed revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Salahuddin the learned Dy.A.-G. Argued that previously Mst. Badshah Zadgai had filed Suit No,41/1 of 1988 which was dismissed on 28-9-1991 under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. She filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Peshawar which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions- Judge, Peshawar for disposal who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 25-10- 1992. Revision Petition No,522 of 1992 filed by her also met the same fate when the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 22-5-1993. Thereafter, she did not file any appeal before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, the judgment of this Court had attained finality. The respondents/plaintiffs concealed all the facts of the earlier suit and their suit was to be dismissed on applying the principles of res judicata, but the learned Court erred in not dismissing the same.
3. On the other hand Mian Muhammad Najeeb Shah, Advocate the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the revision petition filed by the petitioners was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the same deserved dismissal.
4. It was also argued that since earlier suit filed by the mother of the respondents had not been dismissed on merits, therefore, the principles of res judicata would not be applicable to the case in hand.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The revision petition is barred by time. The impugned order was passed on 13-12-1993, the petitioners submitted application for grant of attested copies on 18-12-1993 and they were given the copies on 20-12-1993. They filed the revision petition on 17-3-1994. The revision petition is barred by two days. Although the petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay in which they have taken the plea that the revision petition pertains to Government Department which necessarily involves long process by Department but this in no case is al ground for condonation of delay. In Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Nazar Muhammad Fatiana and others 1998 SCM R 2376 it was held that Government cannot be treated differently than an ordinary litigant while considering the question as to whether sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Samberial, District Sialkot and others v.
Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Central Manager and 3 others 1998 SCM R 307 it was held:-- "This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned the Government cannot be treated differently from an ordinary litigant. If in spite of enormous recourses and facilities, the Government continues to delay the filing of cases in time detrimental to its own interest, the opposite party cannot be penalized for its negligence. It is a settled law that each day of limitation must satisfactorily be explained which the petitioner has failed to do in this case. The petition is hopelessly barred by time and no sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay. Civil Petition No,304 of 1996 must fail on the ground of limitation and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby."
7. Another ground taken in the application ,,is that all the Departments and Courts were closed for Eid Holidays from 12 to 15th March, 1994 but this ground was not available to the petitioner because they could easily file the petition on 16th March, 1994 but as mentioned 13 above, the petition in hand was filed on 17-3-1994 and that too was incomplete in all respects, therefore, the office had to return the same. Without touching the merits of the case the revision petition is dismissed being barred by time. Parties shall bear their own-costs.