' Brief facts out of which present civil revision arises are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,74,148 as damages on 28-9-1993 before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The petitioner filed written statement controverting the allegation levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- Issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,74 .148 is detailed in para. No,5 of the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi'? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is barred by law? OPD
(6) Relief.
2. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 1-6- 2000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 27-7-2000. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 25-1-2002 as time-barred as well as on merits. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is void, therefore, learned First Appellate Court was erred in law to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. He further urges that when judgment and decree is void then limitation does not start against the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent filed suit against the specific person, who had since been retired, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court was erred in law to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner as time-barred. He further submits that the moment present Managing Director was appointed by the Competent Authority and assumed the charge of office, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgments and decree, therefore, the appeal was not time-barred. In support of his contention, he relied upon a case Government of Balochistan and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and 4 others 2001 SCMR 19. He further submits that both the Courts below were erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner without adverting to the misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties which is evident from the parties' name of the plaint. He further submits that the petitioner has very good case on merits but the petitioner was non-suited by the First Appellate Court on technical point. He further urges that the judgments of both the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the record, therefore, the judgments of both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the material facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties to the extent that First Appellate Court was justified to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner as time-barred which are as follows:-
(i) The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1-6-2000.
(ii) The petitioner filed an application for securing the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on 18-7-2000.
(iii) The copies were prepared by the Copying Agency on 19-7-2000.
(iv) The petitioner filed appeal before the First Appellate Court on 27-8-2000.
(v) The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith appeal.
6. The contents of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay was sought on the following grounds:-
(i) The concerned Officer assumed the charge on 14-6-2000.
(ii) After assuming the charge, the petitioner submitted an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on 18-7-2000.
The First Appellate Court observed that grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are self-contradictory and not admissible in the eyes of law.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not attach any application for condonation of delay along with appeal before the First Appellate Court. In case, aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition, then it is crystal clear that the petitioners did not file appeal within time. In fact, the application was moved for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court after prescribed period of one month i,e, decree was passed against the petitioner on 1- 6-2000; whereas the petitioner tiled an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on 18.7-2000. The time for filing of the appeal, had already expired. The Cupying Branch prepared the certified copies of the aforesaid documents on 19-7- 2000 and the petitioner did not file the appeal immediately and filed the same on 27-7-2000.
8. It is settled principle of law that according to law, delay of each day must properly and satisfactorily be explained and this is no ground that matter was delayed because the respondent mentioned the person in the suit, who had retired and officer who had taken charge on 14-6-2000, the appeal was filed after securing certified copies of the judgment and decree, immediately without loss of any time. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid ground is not a valid ground for extension of period of limitation, and does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It is a matter of regret that despite this position being repeatedly clarified by the superior Courts that Government Departments with all their sources continue to delay the filing of the cases in time with loss of Government and public interest. It is also settled principle of law that the Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its sources are much larger. Than those possessed by the ordinary litigants. It in spite of these facilities, the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgment:-- ' Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others 1970 SCMR 558, Government of Balochistan v. Muhammad Ibrahim 2000 SCMR 1028, Government of N.-W.F.P. And others v. Abdul Malik 1994 SCMR 833, The Deputy Director Food v. Syed Safdar Hussain 1979 SCMR 45 and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang M. Dastur and others 1979 SCMR 191.
' The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law as the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in the cited case, which was restored in view of special circumstances that Pardanasheen unmarried lady filed appeal through her attorney, who disappeared during the pendency of the appeal and his whereabouts were not known.
9. The First Appellate Court also decided the case on merits. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of First Appellate Court to resolve the controversy ttween the parties:-- "Further, the appellants damaged the premises and while handing over the possession on 31-3- 1993 specifically mentioned in the charge report (Exh.P.11) that the claim/damages were to be settled by PRACS later on, which were never settled. The appellants caused damage to the premises, but failed to compensate the respondent. The appellants also failed to make the payment of electricity bills, etc. P. W.1 who is a contractor and appeared as witness, he has mentioned the work which he has done and he has also mentioned the list of the work which was completed for the repair of the disputed premises but it was not rebutted by the defendant through his cogent strong and inspiring evidence, while passing the impugned order, the Civil Court has after appreciation passed the decree, the appellant has failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of the evidence which was committed by the learned Civil Judge, while passing the judgment and decree. The present appeal is without substance and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of the appeal be consigned to the record room, after its due completion and file of the learned trial Court be sent back immediately alongwith this order."
' The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the First Appellate Court decided the case against the petitioner on merits after applying his independent mind and after reappraisal of the evidence. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread and non-read by both the Courts below or violated any principle laid down by the superior Courts, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In arriving to this conclusion, 1 am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood 1985 CI C 657 and N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious PLD 1949 PC 26.
' The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is void, has no force. This Court has defined the word "void" in the following terms in case Zahoor Ahmad v. Mahmood Ali and another PLD 1977 Lah. 1377:-- "That mere irregular, incorrect, erroneous or an illegal order,therefore, does not fall within definition of word `void'."
' The only ground taken by the petitioner that order was void that suit was instituted against the respondent by name. Therefore, in view, of aforesaid law laid down by this Court, judgment of the Civil Court does not fall within definition of word "void", even otherwise, the petitioner did not take this plea in the written statement filed before the learned trial Court.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this civil revision has no merits and the same is dismissed. .