P L D 1964 Azad J & K 14 (PLP)

S. 115‑Revision‑No time limit for filing petition. M. Y. Sarof for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent. This is a revision petition against the order of the Sub‑Judge, Mirpur dated 26‑3‑63 whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed and a hearing fixed in the case for arguments. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that since there had been a great unexplained delay in filing the revision petition the same should be rejected and this Court should refuse to interfere. In reply it was stated that the delay in filing the revision petition had not been intentional but that due to a bona fide mistake the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of the Sub‑Judge before the District Judge, Mirpur on 17‑4‑63 (i.e. within 21 days of the order) which was rejected on 31‑7‑63 by the D. J. on the ground that the appeal was not competent and that on 31‑7‑63 the High Court was closed on account of Summer Vacations, yet the petitioner filed his revision petition on 10‑8‑63 in the High Court during vacations which proved that the delay it any, on the part of the petitioner in, filing the revision petition was not intentional. It was further argued that there was no time limit fixed in law for filing a revision petition and that a revision was purely a discretionary remedy, a privilege and not a right and the practice of all the High Courts was to entertain such petitions for revision where there had not been any unnecessary delay and there was no unnecessary and unexplained delay in the present case it should be entertained. Reliance was placed in this connection on A I R 1933 Pesh. 51 and A I R 1929 Oudh 383. In the Oudh case a suit was brought by the plaintiff‑petitioner or in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur for recovery of Rs. 764. The suit was decreed ex parte on 7‑5‑27. The defendant failed in getting the decree ex parte set aside and also failed in declaratory suit brought by him for the purpose of getting the declaration to the effect that the decree passed in that case was without jurisdiction. A revision petition was filed after the expiry of a year and 5 months from the date of the ex parte decree, yet the same was entertained by the High Court on the ground that goof cause had been shown for the delay in filing the revision application. The cause shown in the case was that soon after the ex parte decree was passed the defendant tried to get that decree set aside but failed in his attempt. Thereupon he filed a regular suit for declaration to the effect that the decree was passed without jurisdiction but that suit also was dismissed. After the defendant failed in that attempt he filed the revision petition before the High Court. The circumstances were held sufficient to explain the delay which occurred in filing the revision application. I think there is a good deal of force in what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied that in law A there is no time limit for filing a revision petition though no doubt the practice is that such a petition should be filed without unnecessary delay. In the present case there had been no unnecessary delay and if there was any the same has been explained away very satisfactorily. I, therefore, entertain the revision petition and consider it on merits. According to the petitioner he was allowed 6 opportunities to adduce evidence but on two of these occasions the Sub‑Judge was on leave and that on the remaining days the witnesses did not turn up in spite of the fact that the summons were issued against them and even got served upon them; once for the 25th of July 1962 and in the circumstances it was wrong on the part of the Sub‑Judge to close the evidence of the defendant. I have gone through the interim orders of the Court and I feel that what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no doubt correct, though at one stage on 14‑1‑63 the defendant failed to carry out the orders of the trial Court by avoiding to take `Dasti Summons' for affecting service of his witnesses. Keeping all this in view I feel that the evidence of the defendant should not have been closed but instead he should have been burdened with costs and allowed an opportunity to adduce his evidence. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and allow an opportunity to the defendant‑petitioner to adduce his evidence subject to payment of Rs. 20 as costs on a date to be fixed by the trial Court where the parties have been directed to appear on 1‑12‑1963. The defendant shall himself be responsible to produce his only two witnesses Kala and Sharif before the trial Court in order that their statements be recorded. The defendant shall also be entitled to appear himself as his own witness. Costs to follow the event. K. B. A. Petition accepted.