PLJ 2009 Lahore
347
[Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur]
Present: Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, J.
QUAID-E-AZAM
MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR
through its Principal--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another--Respondents
C.R. No. 53 of 2008, heard on 24.9.2008.
Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)—
----S. 5--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Civil
revision--Condonation of delay--Controversy between the parties--Execution
petition under reference was filed though belatedly with petition for
condonation of delay--Father of respondent was used to pursue the matter as
General Attorney--After the death of his father he immediately moved execution
petition for recovery of decretal amount as compensation--At no stage affidavit
of any functionary from petitioner's side was got placed on record to
controvert the contentions to seek extension--In absence of such a counter
affidavit in his petition for condonation would be deemed to have been admitted
by opposite side which is the case here--There is nothing on the face of record
to make a case for interference by High Court with impugned orders when under
the law execution Court had condoned the limitation in exercise of its
discretionary powers in terms of S. 5 of Limitation Act, after proper
appreciation of facts of the case--Revision dismissed. [Pp. 348 & 349] A & B
Mian Faraz-us-Samad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Hashim Tatari, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24.9.2008.
Judgment
In the instant civil revision Quaid-e-Azam Medical
College, Bahawalpur through its Principal (hereinafter referred as petitioner)
has called in question the orders dated 20.2.2007 and 26.10.2007 passed by
Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur and the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur
respectively whereby Muhammad Aslam/Respondent No. 1's petition for condonation
of delay was accepted.
2. It has been
opposed by the learned counsel representing the Respondents No. 1 and 2.
3. Both the
parties have been heard and record perused.
4. There is no
cavil to say that the controversy between the parties was set at rest at the
level of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as a result of which, the execution
petition under reference was filed though belatedly with a petition for
condonation of delay giving reasons therefor. There is also no denial of the
fact that originally father of Respondent No 1, namely, Rehmat Ali used to
pursue the matter as General Attorney. The case of the petitioner before the
learned lower forums was that being a permanent resident of Karachi in
connection with his private business there, the moment he came to know about
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in his favour after the
death of his father Rehmat Ali, he immediately moved execution petition for
recovery of decretal amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation passed
against Province of the Punjab through Collector/Respondent No. 2 The reasons
given for extension were duly supported by an affidavit filed on his behalf.
5. Perusal of the
impugned orders would reveal that at no stage affidavit of any functionary from
petitioner's side was got placed on record
to controvert the
contentions/reasons
advanced by the Respondent No. 1 to seek extension. So,
therefore, in absence of such a counter affidavit the contentions raised and
supported by affidavit in his petition for condonation would be deemed to have
been admitted by the opposite side which is the case here. In this regard
reliance has been placed on Civil Aviation Authority Vs. M/s. Providence
Aviation (Pvt) Limited (2000 CLC 1722), Basham Khan and others Vs. Syed Shafi
Shah and others (1983 SCMR 183), President of Pakistan through Chairman,
P.W.R., Lahore Vs. Sarfraz Khan (1980 CLC 541), Muhammad Farooq M. Memon,
Advocate Vs. Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi (1986 CLC
1408).
6. When confronted
with the above position, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to
advance any plausible explanation. So, therefore, there is nothing on the face
of record to make a case for interference by this Court with the impugned
orders when under the law the learned executing Court had condoned the
limitation in exercise of its discretionary powers in terms of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act after proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Therefore, the
findings of both the Courts below are neither perverse nor arbitrary calling
for any interference by this Court in revision. Accordingly, it is dismissed,
being devoid of any merit.
(R.A.) Revision dismissed.
