MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER and anothers vs Syed QAMOOS SHAH and 20

Syed Qamoos Shah filed suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kohat seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit in 'favour of respondent No, 1/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22- 4-1992. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Kohat filed Appeal No,62/13 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kohat which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25-10-1994. Being not content with 'the judgments and decrees of the Courts below the petitioners/defendants have filed the revision petition in hand.

2. Haji Salahuddin the learned Deputy Attorney-General argued that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable because the respondent No,1 /plaintiffs had failed to serve notice under section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.

3. It was also argued that under sections 10 and 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965 (LIV of 1965), the suit filed by respondents could not proceed but the Courts below have failed to appreciate the same.

4. On the other hand Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah the learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff on pre-admission notice argued that the revision petition filed by the petitioners was barred by 11 days. No convincing and cogent reasons for condoning the delay has been put forth in the application for condonation of delay, hence the revision petition deserved dismissal on this score alone.

5. It was also argued that the Central Government or Military Estate Officer had not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It was only the Cantonment Executive Officer, who preferred appeal which too was not maintainable, hence the revision petition is not maintainable.

6. It was also argued that no specific plea with regard to the notice under section 273 of the Cantonments Act was either taken in the written statement or in the memo. Of appeal or even in the grounds of revision petition and there was concurrent findings of Courts of competent jurisdiction, which need no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision petition filed by the petitioners is barred by time has force in it. Perusal of the available record reveals that impugned judgment/.Decree was passed by the learned Appellate Court on 25-10-1994. Application for obtaining certified copies was filed by the petitioners on 26-10-1994. Copies were delivered on 4- 12-1994, whereas the revision petition in hand was filed on 15-3:1995. The same was barred by '11 days. No doubt the petitioners have moved application for condonation of delay (C.M.No,280/95), but no cogent reason for condonation of delay has been mentioned in the said application. It is by now settled law that in order to get the delay condoned, delay- of each day is to be explained as held in Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin 1996 SCM R 727 and Income Tax Officer v. Messrs Sh.

Miran Bakhsh Ltd. And 25 others 1986 SCM R 1255. In the case in hand as mentioned above, what to speak of explaining each day's delay, no convincing ground has been taken. It is also by settled law that Government cannot be given preferential treatment and is to be treated at par with common litigants as held in Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Messrs Azhar Brothers Limited 1990 SCM R 1059.

9. The revision petition in hand is, therefore, barred by time.

10. The argument of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that notice as required under section 273 of the Cantonments Act was not served before filing the suit, hence the suit was not maintainable also has no force. It is lamentable to note that the petitioners have from the very beginning dealt with the case in a very careless manner. Neither any specific objection with regard to the non- issuance of notice under section 273 of the Cantonments Act was taken in the written statement nor the petitioners have bothered to annex copies of all the documents with the revision petition as required under section 115, C.P.C. Even the .Notices issued by the Cantonment Board, Kohat with regard to the alleged unlawful construction of shops were not placed on record of this Court. Those notices were however, submitted by the learned counsel for respondents, the perusal of which shows that the Military Estate Officer, Kohat had served notice dated 12-3-1987 upon Syed Qamoos Shah in exercise of powers conferred upon Military Estate Officer under sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965. The respondents/plaintiffs had challenged the said notice in the suit. Neither any notice issued by Cantonment Board or any of its Officers was challenged in the suit nor the Cantonment Board, Kohat or any of its Officer had taken any action against the respondents/plaintiffs, which was challenged in the suit , in hand, therefore, no notice under section 273 of Cantonments Act was required to be served and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was maintainable. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record and I have not been able to find out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any illegality or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the impugned concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed with no orders as to costs.