' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 13-5-1996 passed by learned Single Judge, High Court of Sindh (at Larkana) in. Civil Revision No,130 of 1994).
2. Dispute relates to a shop bearing TCS No,123/1 and CS No,179/2, Ward 'C', Ratodero, District Larkana (hereinafter referred as 'suit premises' towards June, 1960. Muhammad Ramzan (predecessor-in-title of respondents) got transferred 'suit premises' on payment of auction price.
However, permanent transfer orders were subsequently issued during year 1972. It is the case of respondents that Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Camp at Sukkur, having no lawful authority and without giving notice unjustifiably vide order dated 66-1974 declared the 'suit premises' as Evacuee Trust Property, thereby effecting validity of transfer order already issued in their favour.
3. Late father of respondents on coming to know about order dated 6-6-1974, referred above, filed Civil Suit No 144 of 1974 before Senior Civil Judge-II, Larkana, on 25-7-1974. Petitioner vehemently contested the proceedings and also challenged jurisdiction of trial Court to examine validity of order passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. The suit was subsequently dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 16-7-1979. Record reveals that petitioner gave notice of ejectment to respondents when respondents instituted another Suit No,233 of 1982 challenging validity of action taken and order passed by the Chairman. Maintainability of the suit was also specifically challenged on the ground of jurisdiction as well as limitation. Learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of respondents vide judgment dated 23-9-1987. Petitioner aggrieved from said decision preferred Civil Appeal No,18 of 1988 before Additional District Judge-IV, Larkana, which was eventually rejected on 7-9-1992. However, after the lapse of 7/8 months petitioner approached High Court of Sindh (at Sukkur) towards 26-6-1993 through Revision Petition No,59 of 1993, which was subsequently renumbered as Civil Revision No,130 of 1994 (Larkana). Alongwith said petition an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay was also submitted mainly on the ground that judgment of Senior Civil Judge was ab initio void and without jurisdiction. It was asserted that bar of limitation has no applicability as regards void orders. Initially application for condonation of delay was rejected on 28-2-1996 and subsequently main petition was dismissed on 13-5-1996. The above decisions of High Court of Sindh have been assailed in the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record, emphatically urged that by virtue of bar contained in section 14 of Evacuee Trust Properties Act, 1975, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon validity of order dated 6-6-1974 passed by the Chairman. Therefore, according to him proceedings drawn by said Court were devoid of lawful authority. Learned counsel canvassed that decisions of Civil Judge or Appellate Court being void ab initio, delay in filing revision had no relevancy and was condonable.
5. We have gone through available record and considered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner.
6. Admittedly shop in dispute was transferred to respondent pursuant upon auction duly approved by Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, on 9th August, 1960. Transfer price was undoubtedly deposited on 17th March, 1962, before competent Settlement Authorities. Therefore, such transfer by virtue of section 10, A Evacuee Trust Properties Act, 1975, acquired immunity from challenge,' after June, 1968. Besides Chairman has passed order dated 6th June, 1974, without notice or providing opportunity of hearing to predecessor of respondents; accordingly same was not tenable. Even if proceedings before Civil Court suffer from inherent jurisdictional defect, the validity of above-referred order of Chairman is apparently questionable, suffering similar infirmity.
7. Now adverting to other aspect evidently revision petition was filed before High Court of Sindh (Sukkur) almost 122 days beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under law. Attempt was made to explain the delay on account of departmental procedural formalities. This argument loses significance in view of dictum laid down in case, Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Saleem (PLD 1995 SC 396). Petitioner has grossly failed to show sufficient cause, which may entitle him to discretion for condoning inordinate delay. Examining the background of this case, suffice it to observe, that object of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, is broadly to foster justice and obviate wrong, rather than perpetuating an illegality.
8. For the above reasons we do not find substance in this petition, which is consequently dismissed, and leave prayed for is refused.