2026 PLP 6 (YLR)

c.m. no.2 of 2025 Faisal Zaman Khan, J.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (ACT) seeking condonation of delay in filing the civil revision.

2. At the outset of hearing learned counsel for the applicant has been confronted with the situation that office of this Court raised objections to the civil revision and returned the file for removing the same, however, when the civil revision was re-filed the limitation for filing the same had expired and no plausible explanation has been given for the delay caused in refilling the civil revision, therefore, the same being barred by time is not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the civil revision was filed within time and, thus, if the period spent in removing the office objections is excluded the delay can be condoned.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Previously, the limitation for filing a civil revision was provided in Section 115 C.P.C. (90 days from the date of order, judgment and decree), however, since Section 5 of the Act was not applicable, hence, the delay could not have been condoned, however, in view of an amendment made in First Schedule to the Act a new Article (Article 162-A) has been inserted, which spells out the period for filing a civil revision, thus, as a natural corollary to that Section 5 of the Act has been made applicable to Section 115 C.P.C, however, in order to seek refuge of the said provision sufficient cause has to be given by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay. B

6. From the perusal of the available record, it transpires that judgment dated 08.05.2025 was passed by the lower appellate court upon which, a certified copy thereof was applied by the applicants on 19.05.2025, which was prepared on the same day i.e. on 19.05.2025 and was received by them on 17.07.2025, as a consequence thereto this civil revision was initially filed by the applicants on 08.09.2025 and on 11.09.2025 office of this Court raised certain objections and it was directed that the case may be re-filed after removing the objections, whereafter, the file was returned to the applicant on 16.09.2025, however, the civil revision was re-filed on 27.09.2025 and for the interregnum period no explanation seeking condonation of delay has been given, hence, the same cannot be condoned. B

7. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court in judgments reported as Chief Executive, PESCO Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Afnan Khan and another (2021 SCMR 2100), Saleem Khan v. Mst. Zeenat and others (2023 CLC 1217), Khalid Meer and others v. Faqeerullah Minhaj and others (PLD 2018 Lah. 697) and Naheed Ahmad v. Asif Riaz and 3 others (PLD 1996 Lah. 702) that when office of this Court raises an objection to a petition and give time for removing the same, if till the expiry of the prescribed time, the objection is not removed or no permission is sought from the Court for extension in given time, the limitation will start running from the date when the given/prescribed time expires.

8. For a while if this is presumed that the civil revision was filed within time and office of this Court raised certain objections thereto and the applicants took away the file to remove the same and during that period the limitation for filing the civil revision as contemplated in Article 162-A of the Act expires, the civil revision will be considered to be time barred as the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation (although has the power to condone the delay), thus, the course available to the applicants is to file an application under Section 5 of the Act explaining the interregnum period, which can be considered by the court. For reference reliance can be placed on Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 SC 736).

9. Placing the afore-noted case law in juxtaposition with the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the office of this Court raised certain objections to the civil revision on 11.09.2025 with the stipulation that it will be re-filed, whereupon, the case file was received by the applicants on 16.09.2025, however, it was re-filed on 27.09.2025, thus, even if it is considered that when the civil revision was filed, it was within time, however, when the office objections were raised and time was given to remove the same, period of limitation started to run against the applicants as and when the file is received by the applicant and since no valid explanation has been given for the interregnum period (when the file was received and re-filed) as it is not the case of the applicants that they were not aware of the office objections or has not received any intimation qua the same, as they received the case file on 16.09.2025, however, he re-filed the same on 27.09.2025, therefore, when the civil revision was re-filed, the period of limitation as contemplated in Section 115 C.P.C and Article 162-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 had already elapsed and as no sufficient cause has been given for the interregnum period, hence, the delay in re-filing the civil revision, which was refiled after the expiry of period of limitation of the civil revision, thus, cannot be condoned.

10. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Saqib Ali v. Government of Punjab and others (2023 PLC (C,S) 310), Shahin Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others (2022 SCMR 1810), Lal Khan through legal heirs v. Muhammad Yousaf through legal heirs (PLD 2011 SC 657), Qaiser Mushtar Ahmad v. Controller of Examination and others (PLD 2011 SC 174) and Muhammad Amjad v. Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations), Lahore and others (2010 PLC (C.S) 838) has held that each and every day consumed for approaching a court beyond the period of limitation has to be explained, which the applicant miserably failed to do.

11. It has also been settled by the Apex Court that even a void order has to be assailed within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO), Gujranwala v. Khalid Mehmood and others (2023 PLC 65), Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others (2021 SCMR 1158), Abid Hussain v. Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Chief of Air Staff, Islamabad (2021 SCMR 645), Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others (2020 SCMR 2046), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Custom (Preventive), Karachi (2015 PTD 107), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi (2014 SCMR 1594), Gen. (R.) Parvez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 SC 585) and Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and others (2013 SCMR 587).

12. In view of the above, this application being meritless is dismissed. Main case Since the application (C.M.No. 02/2025) seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant revision petition has been dismissed, therefore, this revision petition is also dismissed being barred by time. UN/S-88/L Revision dismissed.