' Relevant facts leading to this revision petition are that respondents filed a suit for possession against the petitioners and stated that they were owners of suit-land (measuring 4 Kanals, 2 Marlas, Khewat No,444/444, Khatuni No,1270) as the same had been transferred in their favour by their father. They further stated that before said transfer their father had constructed houses over the suit-land for servants and petitioners/defendants were in possession of the same being their servants. The respondents mentioned that now petitioners/defendants were not their servants therefore, their father asked them to vacate the suit-land but they requested for some time which was allowed but they failed to vacate suit-land as per agreement, therefore, they were constrained to file suit against them. The defendants mentioned in their written statement that about 70/80 years back Waryam Khan Lumberdar had gifted the suit-land in favour of their grandfather (Shah Muhammad) and he had constructed houses over the same. They further mentioned that they were successors of Shah Muhammad and now plaintiffs intended to dispossess them without any justification. After framing of issues learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment dated 22-10-2002. The petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment and decree but learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same vide judgment dated 2-1-2003. Hence, this revision petition.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. As stated above appeal brought by petitioners was dismissed vide judgment dated 2-1-2003 but they filed this revision petition on 13-5-2003. As such revision petition is time-barred. However, the petitioners have filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing revision petition. They have mentioned in their application that their counsel had not informed them about the dismissal of the appeal and they came to know about the same on 26-4-2003.
However, this is not a good ground for condonation of delay. Even otherwise the appeal was filed by petitioners, therefore, it was their duty to pursue case diligently and take due care in the matter.
The Appellate Court (Additional District Judge) had been granting adjournments in the presence of parties or their counsel. So contention of petitioners is devoid of force. Even otherwise according to following cases failure of counsel to inform his client result of case was not considered sufficient ground for condonation of delay:--
(I) Sher Muhammad v. Said Muhammad Shah 1981 SCM R 212.
(II) Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others 1981 SCM R 194.
(III) Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others 1981 SCM R 126.
' As such application is liable to be dismissed.
4. As stated earlier the petitioners had filed this revision petition on 13-5-2003. Their case is that they came to know about impugned judgment on 26-4-2003 and they received copies on the same day (26-4-2003). However, they remained silent till 13-5-2003 and they have no explanation for this delay. It shows that they were not interested to file revision petition.
5. The petitioners have filed application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908. However, section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance can be placed on the case of Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286. So application brought by petitioners has no force and the same is accordingly rejected.