2009 PLP 769 (MLD)

ABDUL RASHEED KALWAR, J.

This is an application under Article 5 for the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision application. The record shows that impugned order was passed by the Court of IInd Additional District Judge, Thatta in Civil Appeal No.60 of 2005 on 23-5-2007. The impugned order was passed on an application under Order XLI, Rule 19, C.P.C. whereby such application was dismissed and appeal was not restored. The applicant having lost his appeal vide impugned order, presented this revision application on 20-9-2007. The endorsement of the record keeper on the impugned order shows that application for certified copy was made on 31-5-2007, cost was paid, stamps were supplied; copies were prepared and delivered on the same day i.e. 31-5-2007. The copy was promptly supplied to the applicant and any delay was on the part of the applicant to present the revision before this Court. Whatever the good cause may be shown by the applicant but the legal position is that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not available to the applicant for presenting the civil revision before this Court beyond the limitation of 90'days. The provisions of section 29, sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act as well as that of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code are produced hereunder for ready reference:-- Limitation Act "

3. Dismissal of suit, etc., instituted etc., after period of limitation.

Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 25 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therefore by the First Schedule shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Explanation.

A suit is instituted, in ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer, in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and, in the case of a claim against a company which is being wounded-up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to, the official liquidator." "

5. Extension of period in certain cases.

Any appeal or application for a revision or a review or judgment or for leave to appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under any enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefore, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. "

29. Saving.

(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. (2) Where any specific or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that Schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law:-- (a) the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. Civil Procedure Code "

115. Revision.

(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court: Provided that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof, and the High Court shall dispose of such application within three months. (2) The District Court may exercise the power conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a subordinate to matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court. (3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them. (4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the District Court. " In section 115, C.P.C. the limitation for filing Revision Application has 'been provided as 90 days of the decision of Subordinate Court by the Civil Procedure Code itself. The limitation for filing of civil revision is not prescribed in the First Schedule" of Limitation Act, therefore, due to the embargo contained in section 29(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be available to the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the civil revision application before this Court. In these circumstances, the applicant had filed the revision after 119 days. At the most, one day can be deducted as the same has been consumed in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, still the revision is barred by 28 days. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore it is dismissed. In view of above discussion, it is established that the revision application has been filed beyond the limitation, therefore, the same being barred by time is hit by the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908). S.A.K./D-1/K Revision dismissed.