1993 PLP 1869 (CLC)

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115 [as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act (VI of 1992)]‑‑‑Effect of amendment of S. 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Ninety (90) days have been prescribed for filing a revision petition against the decision of subordinate Court‑‑‑Revision having been filed with delay of six months would come within the mischief of amended S. 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Simply because suit had been filed much earlier on 9‑1‑1989, same would not affect question of limitation in respect of revision petition‑‑‑Revision was dismissed as barred by time. Sardar Altaf Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1993. In January, 1989, Qadeer Ahmad brought a Civil Suit against Mirza Ali Ashghar for recovery of Rs. 24,000 as damages. The suit was decreed on 19‑3‑1989. The judgment‑debtor filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, on 1‑4‑1992. He has preferred the present revision petition.

2. As Chairman, Union Council Kotla Mughlan, Mirza Ali Asghar had issued notices to the owners of vehicles to pay Adda fee to the union council and on failure of the latter to make payment, the former had filed against them complaints in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Jampur, under sections 161 and 162 of Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The complaints were, however, dismissed and all the 15 persons arrayed as accused were acquitted under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., vide order dated 28‑11‑1988, by the Magistrate. Thereupon Qadeer Ahmad, one out of these 15 persons instituted a suit against the Chairman, Union Council, for damages, stating that he had been subjected to financial drain, as also to physical inconvenience and mental agony. He assessed the wrong caused to his finances as also to his mental peace; in terms of money as hts.24,

000. Ch. Muhammad Latif, Civil Judge Ist Class, Jampur, however, awarded a decree in the amount of Rs.14,000 only, although he otherwise accepted the plaintiffs claim and rejected the plea put in defence by the Chairman, Union Council. The findings were endorsed in appeal by Mr. Muhammad Akmal Qureshi, Additional District Judge, Rajanpur.

3. It is urged by the petitioner that he had done nothing in personal capacity or for any personal gain but had proceeded against the defaulters as Chairman of the Union Council, in public interest, and his action had the protection of law under section 179, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Both the Courts below have, however, come to the conclusion that only such acts of an Authority which have the sanction of law and are performed in A bona fide manner will have legal sanctity and protection and in absence of ingredients of good faith, such acts would not be immune from judicial scrutiny. According to the defendant‑petitioner, who has placed on record a document Annex. `G', as Chairman of the Union Council, he was authorised to impose and charge `Adds' fee. This is a letter dated 19‑1‑1989 emanating from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dera Ghazi Khan, in response to an application made by the petitioner on 17‑12‑1988. It does not improve the defendant's case. Permission or licence for establishing a regular stand for parking vehicles was a prerequisite for levy of such taxes. It has not been established if any vehicle stand had been set up within the jurisdiction of the union council with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority, prior to the crucial date. There was another condition. Setting up of stand must have sanction of bye‑laws framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance. No such bye‑laws have been brought on record. A private complaint had been filed on 9‑10‑1988, and the same had been dismissed on 28‑11‑1988, and the main ground for dismissal of the complaint was that by that time no bus stand had been established at Kotla Mughlan. The complainant, namely, the Chairman, Union Council did not agitate the matter further in any higher forum. Actually he had earlier also filed a similar complaint with the allegations that the transporters or drivers of vehicles were not paying the transport fee. That complaint is stated to have been withdrawn.

4. It was maintained by the plaintiff, supported by his witnesses, including Pir Saeed Ahmad Bodla, Advocate, that he belonged to Mazari Group and was an ally of the Muslim League, whereas Mirza Asghar Ali had the support of Leghari Group, having affiliation with the. Pakistan People's Party and the action on the part of the Chairman, Union Council had a political motive, mala fide intention and malicious object and was certainly not attended by bona fides or considerations of any public interest. Whereas the plaintiff had been able, to establish his assertion, in a large measure, the defendant had been unsuccessful in displacing the same.

5. The plaintiff had engaged counsel on both the occasions and paid them heavily as he claims and the averment is endorsed by Pir Saeed Ahmad Bodla, Advocate, who states to have charged him Rs.3,000 on each occasion He came to the Court on a number of dates of hearing and had to face lot of inconvenience, embarrassment and financial loss, besides harm to his general reputation, as he was brought into public ridicule. It cannot be said that it was an innocent act on the part of the defendant and the plaintiff has suffered on no count. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince this Court as to how had the two Courts below exercised their authority, without having jurisdiction in the matter or in what manner had any material irregularity been committed by the Courts below calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

6. The revision petition has also been filed with delay. Judgment and decree dated 1‑4‑1992 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge have been assailed by way of this revision petition on 24‑11‑1992. The petitioner had applied for obtaining certified copies of the necessary documents, with a delay of about 6 months, on 28‑9‑1992. It is a misconceived plea that present revision did not come within the mischief of the amendment in law made by virtue of Act VI of 1992, notified on 30‑5‑1992, prescribing 90 days as limitation period for filing a revision petition, under section 115, C.P.C., simply because the suit had been filed much earlier on 9‑1‑1989. In issue, here, is not the question of limitation as regards filing of the suit, but it is the question of limitation, respecting the revision petition, which would evidently be covered by the law presently in force. The civil revision is not only without merit, but is also barred by the Law of Limitation, and is hereby dismissed with costs. AA./A‑425/L Revision dismissed.