2008 PLP 846 (YLR)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

The petitioners, through the present petition seek review of judgment dated 12-5-2005.whereby this Court allowed respondents' appeal (EFA No.133 of 2005) after hearing both the parties and in the presence of their learned counsel. The respondents have resisted the petition through its reply inter alia, pleading that the review petition is barred by time.

2. Learned counsel for the peti tioners, while referring to section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, state that the period of limitation for filing the review petition is to be computed from 14-5-2005, and not from 13-5-2002, thus the review petition is within time. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents states that only the day on which the order under review was pronounced is to be excluded and the review petition is barred by time.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The petitioners filed the present petition on 11-8-2005 seeking review of order dated 12-5-2005. It may be noted that this review petition was initially filed without the certified copy of order dated 12-5-2005 and it was placed on record on 13-2-2006 under the directions of this Court. Thus the petitioners are not entitled for exclusion of time consumed in obtaining the certified copy to judgment under review. Under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment was pronounced is to be excluded. In the present case as the judgment under review was pronounced on 12-5-2005, therefore this day is to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing review petition .Thus period of filing the review, petition shall be computed from 13-5-2005 and it is barred by one day. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on a Court question, have admitted that if the period for filing the review petition is computed from 13-5-2005, then the present petition is barred by one day. In the said perspective to my mind present review petition is barred by time and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. When the review petition was filed; the office raised objection that it is barred by time, therefore, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act should be filed, however, at the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was placed before this Court as an objection case. The learned counsel clearly stated before this Court on 15-9-2005 that the review petition is within time and there is no need to file the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, thereupon this Court directed the office to entertain the petition subject to the question of limitation which is to be decided by the Court itself.

4. The review petition to review judgment dated 12-5-2005 was filed on 11-8-2005, which was entertained and registered by the office on the same day, as such the review petition is barred by time and the petitioners opted not to file any application for condonation of delay.

5. In view of the above the present petition is barred by time hence stands dismissed. H. B. T. /G-100/L Petition dismissed.