2010 CLC 1493 (PLP)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

During the perusal of record, it revealed that the instant civil revision petition is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted to explain the delay in filing of civil revision, the learned counsel has conceded that there is delay of only one day in filing the civil revision. Learned counsel further contends that since the civil revision has been admitted for regular hearing, so the question of limitation will be decided at the time of final arguments. Learned counsel further contends that the certified copies of impugned judgment and decree was prepared by the copying agency on 5-9-2007 but the agency did not inform the petitioner, hence, period of limitation will start running from the date when the petitioner is informed about the preparation of certified copies. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Idrees and 5 others 1998 CLC 1123, Naziran Begum and 2 others v. Saleh Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 37, Pirzada Niaz Ahmad Farooqi through Legal Representatives v. Muhammad Bux and others 2004 SCMR 862 and Kakakhel Industries Limited v. Market Committee, Faisalabad KLR 2003 SC

221. The above citations were carefully examined which has no nexus with the matter in hand.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if civil revision has been admitted, the question of limitation could not be considered before the final arguments is incorrect because it is the duty of the court to consider any question of law at any time and also to notice the question of limitation irrespective of the fact whether the question has been agitated or not. Any order or judgment passed by the trial, appellate or revisional courts should be indicative of the fact that the courts concerned were not only aware but were conscious regarding the question of limitation which shall be dealt with the same diligently with application of mind prior to dilating upon and deciding the controversy on merit because disposal on merit alone is not sufficient to presume that the delay was condoned. Relied on the law laid down in case Dilmir v. Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others PLD 2002 SC

403. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that certified copy was prepared on 5-9-2007 but the petitioner was not informed by the copying agency is also misconceived because section 12(5) of Limitation Act, 1908 provides that only the time which will spent on the preparation of certified copy shall be excluded from the limitation period provided under the law. The contention that copying agency did not inform the petitioner is without substance. Reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Anisa Begum v. Atiq-ur-Rehman 2007 MLD 1385. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the instant civil revision is barred by only one day is not correct as the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 16-7-2007, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree on 17-7-2007 which was prepared on 5-9-2007 and the instant civil revision was filed on 5-12-2007 which was barred by two days. Since the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are not applicable to the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C., therefore, delay of even one day could not be condoned. Relied on the case of City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin 2006 SCMR

676. Resultantly, the civil revision is dismissed being barred by time. A.R.K./M-299/L Revision dismissed.