2002 PLP 1531 (MLD)

Amanullah Khan for Respondents Date of hearing: 19th April, 1999. This is a civil revision application under section 115, C.P.C: directed against the judgment dated 17‑2‑1992 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, South in Civil Appeal No.32 of 1991, Muhammad Rafiq v. K.M.C. and others which was filed on 7‑6‑1992 in this Court. Counsel for respondents has taken up a preliminary objection that the revision application filed by the applicant is beyond statutory period of limitation as provided under section 115, C.P.C., therefore, is liable to be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the memo. of civil revision application and the judgment passed. Contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that the judgment was passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi South on 17‑2‑1992 in presence of the parties and copy of the same applied on 18‑2‑1993, copy of which was made ready on 27‑2‑1992, and certified copy of same was delivered on 1‑3‑1992 and the memo. of the civil revision application was filed on 7‑6‑1992 whereas section 115, C.P.C. provided period of 90 days limitation for filing revision but civil revision having been presented on 7‑6‑1992 .... barred clearly by seven days. He has placed reliance upon (1) Ghulam Hamid Munshi v. Haji Siddiq and 2 others (1997 MLD 2252); (2) Muhammad Ishaq v. Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 2 others, (1998 MLD 272); (3) Government of Punjab and others v. Nazir Ahmad Malik (1998 CLC 830); (4) Akbar Khan v. Muhammad Khan (1990 CLC 1828) and (5) Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others (1991 CLC 269) in support of his contentions. Counsel for applicant has submitted that the amendment in section 115, C.P.C. came into force on 30‑5‑1992, therefore, the applicants were not aware of the said amendment as prior to that, there was no fixed limitation for filing of civil revision and file was misplaced in the office of Director Administration of whom it was sent for his signature, therefore, there was sufficient cause in not filing appeal within the period of limitation hence the delay in filing the civil revision may be condoned. Section 3 of Limitation Act prescribed that suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therefor shall be dismissed although limitation has hot been set up as a defence. Admittedly, in the instant case the period of 90 days is prescribed as per amended section 115, C.P.C., therefore, the revision should have been filed within the period of 90 days from the date of passing of impugned judgment but the revision was not filed within period of 90 days, therefore, on the face of it civil revision has been filed beyond limitation and would be time‑barred. Even prior to the amendment in section 115, C.P.C., prescribing period of 90 days' limitation for the civil revision it was to be filed within reasonable time" and such reasonable time was fixed to be 90 days' in view of the above- cited cases by the counsel for respondents. The cause for delay shown is that the file of the revision was misplaced in the office of Director to whom it was sent for his signature has been termed as negligence on the part of office and the same has never been considered as sufficient cause within section 5 of Limitation Act. I am of the considered view that this revision has been filed beyond period of limitation after 90 days and no sufficient cause for condoning the delay has been shown, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed as being time‑barred. Accordingly, this civil revision application alongwith C.M.A. No.77 of 1999 is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑55/K Revision dismissed.