LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through DirectorGeneral, L.D.A. Plaza, Lahore and anothers vs Messrs SEA HAWK INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE

ORDER

' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioners on 2-2-1994 before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The petitioners filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--

(1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiffs lack cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD

(3) Whether the suit is mala fide? OPD

(4) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD

(5) Whether the plaintiffs have raised unauthorized construction which is liable to be demolished?

OPD

(6) Whether the notices issued to the plaintiffs are illegal, mala fide, ultra vires, incompetent, void, unjust and without jurisdiction and lawful authority, hence liable to be set aside? OPP (6-A) Whether the plaintiffs are lawfully using the premises as commercial? OPD

(7) Relief.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and judgment and decree, dated 8-4-1996. The petitioners being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 15-2-2001. Hence, the present revision petition along with an application for condo nation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. Pre-admission notice was sent to the respondent. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable qua the proceedings arising in the revision petition. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:--

(1) Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCM R 286, (2) Izzat Khan v. Mst. Insha Allah Begum and others PLD 2001 Kar. 396 and (3) Mughla and others v. Jaffar and others 2001 CLC 1410.

' He further urges that the petitioners had taken a ground for condo nation of delay that the record of the petitioners was misplaced. The same is not a sufficient ground for condo nation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in case section 5 is applicable in the proceedings arising in the revision petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:--

(1) Government of the Punjab v. Syed Khizar Abbas 1999 SCM R 2260 and (2) Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Abdul Aziz Khan 2000 SCM R 1371.

' He further urges that the Government and the citizens are at par before the Courts, therefore, revision petition be dismissed as time-barred. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:--

(1) Central Board of Revenue v. Messrs Raja Industries 1998 SCM R 307 and (2) Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Rafi Associates Ltd. 1985 CLC 2234.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioners, submits that the judgments cited by the learned counsel of the respondent are distinguished on facts and law. He further urges that the Honourable Supreme Court insisted that the cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. I would like to state facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:--

(i) The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is dated 15-2-2001.

(ii) The date of filing the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is 13-3-2001.

(iii) Copy was prepared on 11-4-2001.

(iv) Copy was delivered on 11-4-2001.

(v) Revision petition was filed on 25-9-2001 alongwith an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the record of the petitioners was misplaced.

(vi) Revision petition is time-barred for 121 days.

7. The revision petition filed by the petitioner for a considerably delay of 121 days. It is settled principle of law that the Government/ statutory bodies are at par with the general public. The ground mentioned in the application that the record of the petitioners was misplaced is not a sufficient ground. Even otherwise section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the revision proceedings as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed as time-barred: