-O.VIII R. 1 & O. XLVII, Rr. 1(3)--Suit for possession through pre-emption--Closing of right to file written statement-

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 115

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.VIII R. 1 & O. XLVII, Rr. 1(3)--Suit for possession through pre-emption--Closing of right to file written statement--Dismissal of application for restoration of right to file written statement revision petition was barred by time--Challenge to--Petitioner’s right to file written statement was closed by trial Court--Revision petition, same was badly time barred as it was filed after lapse of more than one year, which is beyond period of limitation under law--Court cannot rescue a party sleeping over its rights, which fails to challenge even a void order against it, within prescribed period of limitation from date of knowledge--Expiry of within which a legal resort can be made, a right accrues in favour of other side by operation of law which cannot lightly be taken away--Petition disposed of.   [Para 3 & 4] A, B & C

Mr. Asif Raza Naul, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Imran Bhatti, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 29.3.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 115
Present: Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.
BILAL LATIF--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASLAM, etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 13877 of 2022, decided on 29.3.2022.

Order

In a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter called as the respondent) against the defendant (hereinafter called as the petitioner), the petitioner’s right to file written statement was closed by learned trial Court, vide its order dated 19.11.2020, the application seeking setting aside the order dated 19.11.2020 and restoration of right to file written statement was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 02.11.2021. Even, the petitioner’s revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, also failed, vide its order dated 03.01.2022. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. It is straightaway observed that petitioner’s right to file written statement was closed by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 19.11.2620. The petitioner moved an application for recalling the order dated 19.11.2020 while restoring his right to file written statement on 23.01.2021, which was also dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 02.11.2021, with the observation that the order regarding closing of right to file written statement/written reply is an appealable order. Moreover, according to Order XLVII Rr. (1)(3), ‘No application for review shall be entertained unless the person seeking review furnishes cash security of rupees five thousand. The security shall stand forfeited if the review petition is dismissed at the initial stage without notice to the opposite party. The amount deposited as security shall be paid to the opposite party if the review petition is dismissed after being contested. The provisions of this rule shall not apply where the appellant seeking review is a person who has been declared by a competent Court to be an undischarged insolvent or a pauper”. In the present case, the petitioner is guilty of non-compliance of provision of the ibid Order. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned trial Court on 30.11.2021 whereby, the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad dismissed the revision petition, vide its order dated 03.01.2022, with the observation that “the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application for recalling of the order. The petitioner/ applicant has not described sufficient ground for recalling of order as provided in Order 47 of CPC. Present petitioner/ defendant failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in order dated 2.11.2021”. Furthermore, perusal of the contents of the civil revision show that the petitioner did not challenge expressly the order dated 19.11.2020 through which, the petitioner’s right to file written statement had been closed. Even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.11.2020 through the revision petition, the same was badly time barred as it was filed after lapse of more than one year, which is beyond the period of limitation i.e. 90-days as provided under the law.

4. It is settled principle of law that a Court cannot rescue a party sleeping over its rights, which fails to challenge even a void order against it, within the stipulated/prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge. Needless to say that expiry of within which a legal resort can be made, a right accrues in favour of the other side by operation of law which cannot lightly be taken away. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for issuance of writ of certiorari. No illegality or irregularity is observed in the impugned orders, which are pregnant with sound reasons and well founded, resultantly, this writ petition having no merits is hereby dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition disposed of