2008 PLP 628 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant civil revision assailed appellate judgment, dated 26-3-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby appeal of the respondents was accepted and by setting aside the order of the trial Court, dated 24-1-2007, injunction prayed was issued.

2. The revision petition is barred by limitation as the same was filed with a delay of one day and the petitioner has moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (C.M.2/C of 2007) praying condonation of delay. Period of limitation for filing of a civil revision has been prescribed by section 115, C.P.C. a special enactment other than the Limitation Act itself. Section 29(2) of the Act (ibid) envisages that where period of limitation is differently provided by any special/local law, provisions contained in sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 will apply and the remaining provisions of the said Act shall not be applicable. Meaning thereby that where the limitation is provided by any special enactment, other than the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Act (ibid) is not applicable for condonation of delay if occasioned in filing such lis. For convenience and ready reference section 29(2) of the above referred Act is reproduced and reads as under:-- "29(1)

(2) Special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the first schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period was prescribed, therefore, in that schedule, and for the purposes of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any such, appeal or application by any special or local law (a) the provisions contained in sections 4, 9 to 18 and section 22 shall apply insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law, and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply."

3. Question regarding condonation of delay in filing a civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. by invocation of section 5 of the Act (ibid) was earlier considered by the Honourable Supreme Court and other superior Courts of this country, with the answer that section 5 of the Act is not available in such cases. On this proposition, reference can conveniently be made to the judgments in the cases of Allah Dino and others v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286, Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others v. Masood Enterprises 2001 YLR 327 and Messrs Awan Construction Company Government Contractors (as then were) through Mahmood-ul-Alvi and another v. United Bank Limited through Manager 2005 CLD 1500.

4. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments in the cases of Shujaat Hussain v. Muhammad Habib and another 2003 SCMR 170 and Muhammad Bashir and another v. Province of the Punjab and others 2003 SCMR 83 is misplaced for. the simple reason that first judgment referred by him relates to exclusion of time requisite for getting certified copies in terms of section 12 to the said Act whereas the latter judgment deals with interference in discretion exercised by the High Court. Both these precedent judgments proceed on altogether different facts and are not helpful to this case. The other judgments referred at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be preferred in presence of direct judgments on the point by the apex Court.

5. For the reasons noted above, instant revision petition being barred by limitation, is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P-4/L Petition dismissed.