2013 Y L R 1523




Before Shah Jehan Khan Akhundzada, J


MUSLIM GUL and 4 others—Petitioners




MIR BADSHAH and 23 others—Respondents


Civil Revision No.64-P of 2013, decided on 5th April, 2013.

Abdur Rashid Pirzada for Petitioners.




SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUND-ZADA, J.—Muslim Gul and others, petitioners/plaintiffs have impugned the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-2010 of Civil Judge IX, Mardan was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Mardan vide judgment and decree dated 11-7-2012.


2. Brief facts of the case are that Muslim Gul and others petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit against respondents/ defendants for a declaration and possession to the effect that they are owners of the property in dispute measuring 35-kanal, 13-marla on the strength of Mutation No.2921 attested on 21-6-1924 comprising Khasra Nos.4249, 4250, 1378 and 1379 bearing Khata Nos. 760/2358 and 542/454 as per jamabandi for the year, 1995-1996 and the respondents/defendants have got no concern with it and the entries in the Revenue Record in their names are wrong and illegal and ineffective upon the rights and the same are liable to be corrected. Petitioners/ plaintiffs have also prayed for possession as a consequential relief along with permanent injunction.


3. After framing of issues, recording pro and contra evidence and hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 11-10-2010 referred to above. Aggrieved from the aforesaid findings of the trial Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court which too met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 11-7-2012. Hence the present revision petition.


4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and have also perused the material available on the file.


5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Addl: District Judge-VII, Mardan reveals that it was passed on 11-7-2012 and the petitioners/plaintiffs have submitted an application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court on 20-9-2012 which were supplied to them on 26-9-2012 and thereafter the present revision petition has been filed by them on 20-12-2012 after a delay of about 64/65 days while the stipulated period of limitation of ninety days (90) has been mentioned in section 115, C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs has not filed any application for condonation of delay along with the instant revision petition. The law of limitation cannot be considered merely a formality but the same is required to be observed and taken into consideration being mandatory in nature. The purpose of law of limitation is to help the vigilant and not the indolent. A helping hand may not be extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights. Concerned person has, however, to be made aware of the invasion of his interests, and awareness has to be ascertained as a matter of fact. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Revision Petition being hopelessly time-barred is liable to be dismissed.


6. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs and its findings on all issues being based on proper appraisal of evidence are well-founded and thus the learned lower Appellate Court was justified to dismiss their appeal on account of having no substance in it. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has failed during the course of arguments to point out any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below who have neither exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law nor have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it by law nor in the exercise of its jurisdiction have acted illegally or with material irregularity, therefore, in view of the above discussion I find that the judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are well-founded and thus need no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, on account of the fact that the judgments of both the Court below neither suffer from mis-carriage of justice nor are the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record.


7. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed being hopelessly time-barred and having no substance in it, thus, the same is dismissed in limine.


HBT/181/P Petition dismissed.