' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, Petitioners seek leaveto appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 10-4- 2003, delivered in Civil Revision No,357 of 1992/BWP.
2. The facts of this case are already elaborately mentioned in the impugned judgment and the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned High Court on the point of limitation.
Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Rana Mazibool Ahmed. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Inter alia, contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition was not intentional and was beyond the control of the petitioners and that the learned High Court should have condoned the delay and decided the revision petition on merits.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record. The material available on record does not support the contentions of the learned counsel. There was intentional delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the High Court for relief.
5. The learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court, after carefully examining/analyzing the record found the revision petition to be hopelessly time-barred and on the point of limitation it was dismissed. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- "(6) According to the contents of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners had approached Malik Ghulam Haider, Advocate, on 15-9-1992 and his unfortunate death came to their knowledge in the second week of October, 1992. If the time from the date of knowledge is excluded, the petitioners had spent 33 days more and after deducting this .Period, only 19 days were left with the petitioners to file the revision petition. The petitioners have stated in their application, seeking condonation of delay that the factum of death of Malik Ghulam Haider, Advocate who was earlier engaged by them, came to their knowledge in the second week of October, 1992, and the time Started functioning against them from the date of knowledge, i.e,the second week of October, 1992.
They could file the revision Within 19 clays but the instant petition has been filed on 6-12-1992, i.e, beyond the expiry of period of limitation from the date of knowledge. The petitioners were under obligation to explain the delay of each and every day but no explanation has been given therefor.
The limitation could only be condoned if the petitioners had been vigilant and if their plea is accepted that the copies were not traceable from the office of the deceased Advocate, they could apply for fresh copies and file the revision petition within time. But it is not the case of the petitioners. They had filed the revision petition on the basis of the same certified copies delivered to them on 12-8-1992. Certified copy of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court was supplied to them on 12-8-1992; the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court/Civil Judge was received by the petitioners on 5-9-1992. While it is stated in their - application for condonation of delay that they had delivered these certified copies of the record to their deceased Advocate on 15-9-1992. The contention of the petitioners is belied from the record After the expiry of period of limitation, a vested right accrues to the other side. The petitioners have not been able to put forth sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application (C.M.1/96) seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed."
6. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers is entirely in consonance with the law, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave declined.,