2011 PLP 1477 (YLR)

C.M.A No.363/C/2010 CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--This Civil Revision was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 19-3-2010 by this Court. Respondent No.1 has moved C.M. No.363 of 2010 under section 3 of the Limitation Act read with Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. with the prayer that the instant revision petition be dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed without affixing the requisite court fee and further that the civil revision is badly barred by limitation and the office has erred in advising the petitioner to file an application for condonation for delay. Learned counsel contends that since section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the matters of civil revisions, so the delay could not be condoned.

2. On 21-4-2010, civil revision petitioners were summoned to submit their written reply about the controversy.

3. Learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff contends that in para 19 of the plaint, value of suit for the purposes of payment of court-fee and jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs.1,

000. The defendant raised objections and has controverted that the plaintiff/petitioner has not correctly valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and affixation of court purposes fee which act of the plaintiff is contumacious and the suite is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, Issue No.5 was framed that whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and onus of proof of this issue was on the parties but none of the parties adduced their evidence, therefore, Issue No.5 was decided against respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the civil revision was filed in time and the court cannot dismiss the civil revision being time-barred as the petitioner has a prima facie case. In support of his averments, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has relied upon 2000 SCMR 847 and has contended that the C.M. be dismissed and the matter be finally disposed of at the time of final arguments of the civil revision, which has already been admitted for regular hearing.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record available on file.

7. Perusal of record reveals that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 14-9-2009 and the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 15-9-2009 which was prepared on 19-9-2009. On 3-11-2009, the office returned the instant revision petition with eight objections advising the petitioner to submit the instant revision petition after removing the objections including the affixation of requisite court-fee. A period of three days was allowed to the petitioner for the very purpose.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner re-filed the case on 26-12-2009 during winter vacation and the case was fixed for 19-1-2010. On the first day of opening of this Court, the office found that the last date for filing of civil revision has lapsed without removing all the objections, therefore, the office once again returned the file with the direction to remove the objections and also desired to file application for condonation of delay but the learned counsel for the petitioner did not remove the objections till 15-3-2010 when he re-filed the case without complying with the order of the office nor he submitted application for the condonation of delay as asked for by the Deputy Registrar of this Court. However, on 16-3-2010, the civil revision was fixed before this Court and the case was adjourned with the following order:- "Fixed on the judicial side subject to the question of payment of court-fee and limitation. Office objection is disposed of."

9. So far as the payment of court-fee is concerned, no evidence was produced before the trial court on Issue No.5, therefore, the office objection to the extent of payment of court-fee is overruled, however, the question of limitation is a crucial question. Admittedly, the civil revision is barred by time and the petitioner has also not moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to prove his bona fide that (i) what were the circumstances that he could not remove the office objection within the stipulated period and (ii) what is the explanation for delay in re-filing of civil revision after the provided period. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable.

10. Admittedly section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the matters of revisions. Section 115 of C.P.C. provides that civil revision he filed within a period of 90 days, but despite the fact that there are concurrent findings of fact of two courts below against the petitioner, he remained lethargic and did not approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation, resultantly delay could not be condoned. Reliance is placed on 2006 SCMR 676, 2008 MLD 89 and 2001 SCMR 288.

11. In the circumstances, the C.M. No.363/C/2010 in Civil Revision No.1012 of 2010 is accepted and the Civil Revision No.1012 of 2010 is dismissed being badly barred by time. No order as to costs. M.U.Y./A-122/L Petition dismissed.