1999 PLP 1075 (MLD)

1-1-2001 2. 14-10-1993 14-10-1998 3. 9-6-1994 14-10-1998 24-1-1996 4.

5. 21-7-1994 24-7-1999 6. 24-4-1992 11-5-1998 7. 20-4-1996 19-4-2001 (1) 1994 SCMR 833 Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 3 others v. Abdul MAlik n this authority their lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed: "A civil revision is to be filed within 90 days and in case of delay, the same is to be explained, though while considering the question of delay in filing of a civil revision, the Court will be more liberal as compared to the approach in an application for condonation of delay of the limitation period provided for in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act for any legal proceedings." In very authority their lordship have further observed: "Though while considering the question of condonation of delay in filing of a civil revision, that Court will not follow the strict rule that the delay of each day is to be explained for condonation of delay of statutory period but, at the same time, every ground of delay cannot be accepted. In the report case, -the certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellant's counsel, according to the counsel for the appellants, on the very day when an application for certified copy of the same was made. No particulars had been given as to how delay had taken place." In this revision also certified true copy of the Judgment and decree has been filed wherein date has been mentioned as 7-8-19-96 whereas nothing is mentioned in the application as to when the application was submitted in the Court for getting copy, when fee was deposited and what was the date given by the Court to get the copy. The Judgment and decree was prepared and compared by some one without mentioning the date as to when the-fee was deposited or when the application itself was submitted; for obtaining, the copy. In any case delay where-so-ever hags not been explained. Under the circumstances in my humble opinion, this authority is not helpful to the case of the appellants. (2) 1994 CLC 1195 Muhammad Ishaque v. Administrator (PR) and others In this case Abdul Majid Tiwana, J. of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, has observed that: "Certified copy of the Judgment was supplied to the petitioner on 22-6-1992. Revision filed on 13-6-1993 was returned under certain objections with the direction for refiling the same within seven days but was actually refiled on 21-9-1993. Interval between 23-6-1992 to 5-5-1993 was sought to be covered with the help of ten medical certificates about the aliment of petitioner. No plausible explanation was furnished for consuming more than three months in refiling the civil revision after removal-of objections." In the above reported case the revision was dismissed and the learned Judge was pleased to issue notice to the concerned Doctor who issued fake certificates about illness of the petitioner for use in the judicial proceedings. I am afraid on the face of it this authority in any case is not relevant, helpful and applicable to the present revision. (3) 1997 SCMR 1139 Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others Brief facts of this case are that the appellant filed suit for declaration in the Court at Qazi Sarawan, alleging that 4 pieces of land bearing Khasra Nos. 125 to 128, to 128, situated in Mauza Lavinda, Tehsil Mastung, District Kalat, measuring about 7 acres, 2 Rods and 32 Pales was in his possession as his ancestral property. That the entires made in the Revenue Record in favour of respondents as the time of preparation of settlement record in respect of suit land had no effect on the title of the appellant. That the respondents filed proceedings against the appellant. That the respondents filed proceedings against the appellant under section 145, Cr.P.C. before the Assistant Commissioner, Mastung, claiming that the suit land was entered in the Revenue Record in their favour as owner and that the appellant was trying to take over forcible possession of the suit land. That from the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. the appellant for the first time came to know about the existence of entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the suit land in favour of respondents and accordingly, after obtaining the copy of extract from the revenue record filed the suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and correction of Revenue Record. The trial Court after settlement of issues and recording evidence decreed the suit. The Judgment and decree of trial Court was set aside in appeal by Majils-e-Shoora on 12-6-1988 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. After remand of the case by Majlis-e -Shoora to the Court of Qazi, Sarawan, the appellant/plaintiff amended his plaint to which amended written statement was filed by respondents and thereafter fresh issues were settled in the suit by the Qazi. After recording further evidence and hearing the parties, Qazi Sarawan again decreed the suit which was upheld by Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat by judgment and decree dated 10-9-1990. The respondents challenged the judgment and decree of Majlis-e-Shoora dated 10-9-1990 before the High Court of Balochistan, at Quetta, which was partly allowed and the case was remanded to Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat, for a fresh decision of appeal on merits. The learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat, after remand of the case reheard the appeal and by judgment dated 12-5-1991 dismissed the same. Once again the matter was brought before the High Court of Balochistan, at Quetta, in Civil Revision Application No. 128 of 1991 by the respondent. The learned Chief Justice by judgment dated 28-12-1991 accepted the above revision application and after setting aside the judgments and decrees of Qazi Sarawan dated 4-6-1990 and that of Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat, dated 12-5-1991, dismissed the suit instituted by appellant. The appellant preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 28-12-1991 which was allowed on 7-9-1993 and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision of Civil Revision Application No. 128 of 1991 in accordance with the law. After remand of the case by Supreme Court, the learned Chief Justice once again re-affirm his earlier decision and accepted the Civil Revision Application filed by respondents Civil Appeal No.96-Q of 1994 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordship of the Supreme Court held that process of examination of the evidence for upsetting a concurrent finding of fact in exercise of powers under section 115, C.P.C., in their Lordship view, is neither permissible nor warranted by law. The interference with a finding of fact by the Courts below by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. could only be justified if such finding is found to be suffering from misreading of evidence or non-consideration of important and material evidence or the finding is that result of perverse appreciation of evidence on record. A `wrong or erroneous conclusion on a question of fact by the courts below is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The appeal was accepted. This authority also on the face of it is not relevant and helpful to the case of the appellant. Whereas the case law cited by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned counsel for the respondents and provisions of C.P.C. and section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, supports the contention of Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed. It would be pertinent to refer case of Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1995 SC -191) wherein their Lordship have observed as follows: It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding-of fact by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in Second Civil Appeal much less in exercise of the revisonal jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below in perverse." I would again like to refer a recently decided decision of their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rozi Khan and others v. Nasir and others (1997 SCMR 1849) have observed as follows:- "Evidently the scope of revisional jurisdiction is curative and narrower, which can be appropriately invoked where subordinate forums have committed jurisdictional error or misread the evidence or ignored material aspects affecting very root of the case or suggest perversity." The trial Court after considering the evidence and documents, dismissed the suit. The same order was upheld by the First Additional District Judge. The findings of both the Courts are based actually on the evidence of the parties and, therefore, they have not committed any illegality or irregularity. Under the circumstances, the revision being time-barred and without substance/merit is dismissed in limine. After hearing of the parties on 20-10-1997 the revision was dismissed by short order. These are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./M-298/K Revision dismissed.