Revision petition

In cases where revisional Court assumed suo motu jurisdiction, only such cases ought not to be dismissed for non-prosecution

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Erroneous concurrent findings based on misreading and non-reading of evidence are not sacrosanct from interference while invoking revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C.

Revision application filed against concurrent findings of courts below and that too against execution application has extremely narrow scope.

Findings of the fact/law recorded concurrently by the courts below usually cannot be interfered/upset by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Revision can only be filed if the order/judgment which has been impugned comes within clauses (a), (b) and/or (c) of subsection (1) of S. 115 of C.P.C.

Anti-Narcotics Force could only invoke the jurisdiction of appeal under S. 48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for challenging the order of Special Court

Authorization by the Acting Director, Anti-Narcotics Force under S. 14 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for filing revision petition was given after the expiry of statutory period of limitation for challenging the impugned order

Appellant, neither at the time of filing revision nor at the time of oral request to convert the revision into appeal, had filed any application for condonation of limitation period for filing the appeal

In the absence of any request for condonation of delay or any oral explanation for the delay in filing appeal, no justification existed to entertain the hopelessly time-barred appeal

Reasoning advanced by the Trial Court was confession of guilt and also that the accused was of young age being the only bread-earning member of the family as well as admittedly first offender

Appeal was dismissed.

Whereas constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with revisional order unless it is based on gross misreading or non-reading of evidence and the reasons given are absolutely perverse, not supported by law or evidence or the material available on record.

Where petitioner had filed revision petition against an order passed in civil first appeal converted into revision by the District Judge, Chief Court observed that second revision petition did not lie in law.

Petitioner assailed interlocutory order passed on an application under S.12(2), C.P.C., whereby notices were issued to respondents

Contention of petitioner was that application for interim relief was filed along with the application under S.12(2), C.P.C., which was not entertained or adverted to by the trial court which amounted to declining the interim relief

Validity

Impugned order did not show that application for interim relief was taken up for hearing before the court which had taken cognizance of the application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Petitioner was required to show that the application had been taken up for hearing and after applying application of mind the court had either refused the relief or deliberately avoided to pass any order on the same amounting to refusal of interim relief

Revision petition being premature was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner in the first instance may raise the matter of pendency of the application before the trial court.

Concurrent findings of the courts below can only be interfered when the same results into perpetuating miscarriage of justice or if there is any misapplication of principles relating to appreciation of evidence or when the impugned judgments are against the law.

Respondent filed application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner stating therein that the suit property was allotted to him

Said application was allowed and the entries available in the record of rights in favour of the applicants were cancelled on the premise that all such entries overlapped with the allotment of respondent

Said order was assailed in appeal before Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed

Revision was preferred before the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, was also dismissed

Applicants filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Court and thereafter filed appeal before the District Court

Validity

Legal position reflected that Revenue hierarchy had decided the 'entitlement of subject land'

Findings of facts and law by the two courts below were concurrent and the applicants had failed to point out misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned orders

Findings recorded by the Trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court were neither perverse nor were the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence

Oral as well as documentary evidence was fully discussed

High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., declined interference with the findings of the courts below

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed order passed by Appellate Court whereby his appeal against interlocutory order passed by Trial Court was dismissed

Validity

Trial Court vide impugned order had simply deferred/adjourned the hearing of injunction application till filing of written statement by the defendants and had not passed any adverse order against the petitioner

Order passed by Trial Court was neither appealable nor revisable

High Court observed that an application under O.XXVI, R.9, C.P.C., was filed by petitioner for appointment of commission for local investigation, which was pending adjudication in the Trial Court

Case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction by the High Court to dispose of the application under O.XXVI, R.9, C.P.C., on top priority basis and thereafter, dispose of the application under O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., after hearing arguments of both the parties on merits within shortest possible time

Parties, in the meanwhile, were directed to maintain status quo

Revision petition was disposed of accordingly.

If no power of revision is provided under Arbitration Act, 1940, revision cannot be filed against appellate judgment rendered in accordance with S.39 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

High Court had the visitorial power over the Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, it could entertain petitions in the nature of those covered by Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C, except to the extent of grant of bail or release of an accused in a case triable by Anti-Terrorism Court, in light of restriction imposed under S. 21(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Court, 1997.

Trial Court concluded that deceased received injury due to the accidental act of accused, therefore, he was convicted and sentenced under S. 322, P.P.C. and was held liable to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of deceased

Accused was not convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Validity

Record showed that the impugned judgment did not mention that accused had been acquitted from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Accused having not been convicted and sentenced for the charge under S. 302, P.P.C., it would be deemed that accused was acquitted from the said charge by the Trial Court

If the accused was deemed to be acquitted from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C., his acquittal from the said charge could not be converted into conviction in the revisional jurisdiction as per provision of S. 439(4)(a), Cr.P.C.

Revision petition was not maintainable in circumstances, which was dismissed accordingly.

Record showed that the impugned judgment was passed in a private complaint, therefore the petitioner/complainant was supposed to file a petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal of accused from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Remedy of filing an appeal with special leave of the court was provided under S. 417(2), Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of accused from the charge under S. 302, P.P.C.

Revision petition in circumstances was not maintainable under S.439(5), Cr.P.C., which was dismissed accordingly.

Lurking house-trespass or house breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, theft in dwelling house, theft liable to tazir

Private complaint, dismissal of

Petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal

Revision petition

Maintainability

Petitioner had filed complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C. against her daughter and others under Ss. 454 & 380, P.P.C. and S. 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and alleged therein that she was induced by respondents, as a result of which, she had entered into Nikah with respondent without her consent

Said respondent, thereafter entered into her house and took away with them golden ornaments, clothes and cash

Trial Court after preliminary proceedings, dismissed the complaint

Validity

Order of dismissal of private complaint could not be equated with the order of acquittal as neither the Trial Court applied the provisions of S.249-A or 265-K of Cr.P.C. nor the acquittal was recorded after full dressed trial

Petition being not tenable in law, was dismissed in limine.

When revision was initially filed within the prescribed period of limitation and office raised objection and time for removing objection if consumed more than the time granted by the court then revision could not be dismissed as barred by time.

Even if on reappreaisal of evidence, a different view is possible, High Court cannot substitute its own view and upset concurrent findings of courts below

Such findings can only be interfered with if courts below have misread and misconstrued evidence of record or have committed any jurisdictional defect or any material irregularity and illegality in arriving at such findings.

Time period of 90 days for filing revision petition was prescribed under Art. 162-A of Limitation Act, 1908, which had been omitted from the Act by Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1965; however, in the year 1992, by an amendment in C.P.C., third proviso was added in S. 115, C.P.C. through Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 providing a period of 90 days for filing revision against the decision of the subordinate courts

Period of 90 days was not applicable to the filing of revision in the High Court, as the same had been filed in the year 1987

Plaintiff had specifically pointed out in the memo of the revision petition that time had been spent in obtaining the certified copies of some of the relevant documents, which ought to have been filed along with the revision in compliance of S. 115, C.P.C., which position had not been disputed by the defendants through any counter affidavit

Revision petition, therefore, had been filed within reasonable time-Revision, even otherwise, could not be dismissed on the question of limitation particularly in view of the fact that the defendants had hopeless case and their conduct was also questionable.

Accused and co-accused/non-petitioners, applied for bail and the Trial Court refused bail to the extent of accused, while same was allowed to co-accused through impugned orders

Nothing was on record showing that anybody had witnessed accused while forcibly taking away the deceased from the house of co-accused; and going towards the place of occurrence

No other substantial evidence established involvement of accused connecting him with the crime

Prima facie, case against accused was that of further probe

Co-accused were not present at the spot where the offence of murder was committed

Participation of co-accused in the occurrence was also a matter of further probe

Co-accused were rightly allowed bail by the court below

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Revision petition was time barred by one month even after excluding the time consumed for obtaining copies of judgment and decree

Contention of defendants-Department was that delay was due to shortage of funds/late supply of court fee papers for filing of revision application

Validity

Delay would defeat equity and equity would aid the vigilant and not the indolent

Person who was negligent in filing appeal and had failed to pursue his case with due diligence was not entitled to any indulgence by the court

Government or any department of the same could not be treated differently from an ordinary litigant and opposite party could not be penalized for negligence of said Government or department

If Statute governing proceedings did not prescribe period of limitation then proceedings instituted there-under would be governed by Limitation Act, 1908 but where law under which proceedings had been launched had prescribed a period of limitation then benefit of S.5 of said Act could not be availed unless same had been made applicable as per S.29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable under S.29(2) of said Act on revision petition which had 90 days of period of limitation

Present revision petition was time barred by one month

No illegality or material irregularity was found in the impugned judgment to invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction to go into fetters of limitation for ensuring adherence to law and administration of justice

Revision was dismissed being time barred in circumstances.

Even on reappraisal of the evidence, if a different view was possible, the High Court could not substitute its own view and upset the findings of facts concurrently arrived at by the courts below

Concurrent findings of courts below could only be interfered with if the courts below had misread and misconstrued the evidence on record or had committed any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity and illegality in arriving at such findings

Revision petition was dismissed.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.4,9 to 18 & 22, Art.162-A [as inserted by Limitation (Amendment) Ordinance (XLIII of 1962) and omitted by Limitation (Amendment) Act (XI of 1965)]

Revision petition

Delay, condonation of

Exclusion of time consumed in obtaining certified copies of judgment/decree and other documents required to be filed along with revision petition

Scope

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, though being a general law for all legal and practical purpose, for having prescribed period of limitation for filing a revision petition would be considered a special law for purposes of Limitation Act, 1908

Had legislature intended to treat C.P.C. as a general law for purposes of Limitation Act, 1908, then same in its First Schedule would have prescribed a period of Limitation for filing revision petition

Provision of Ss.4, 9 to 18 & 22 of Limitation Act, 1908 would, thus, apply even to revision petition filed under S.115, C.P.C. however, S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, for not finding mention in S.29 thereof shall, not be applicable to revision under S.115, C.P.C.

Any time consumed for obtaining certified copies of pleadings, documents order required in support of such petition would thus be excluded

Principles.

Petitioner's application in year 2007 for placing on record additional documents not filed along with revision petition in year 2004

Respondent's objection that such documents could not be placed on record and considered after expiry of ninety days of passing of impugned judgment/decree

Validity

Requirement of S. 115(1), C.P.C., for being procedural and directory could not be used as a detrimental object to refuse substantial justice

Main documents i.e. impugned judgment and decrees had already been annexed with revision petition

Additional documents sought to be placed on record were certified copies of judicial record of case, thus, consideration thereof could not be refused

High Court accepted such application as same would not cause pre-judice to respondent.

Court had to decide such petition on basis of available record.

First application was dismissed by Appellate Court as not pressed with the specific prayer that the same be dismissed which also led to the dismissal of the second application

Same stigma would be carried to the application made before that court

Petitioner's right to produce the additional evidence was closed by the Trial Court under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Said hump being still in the way, petitioner could not ask at revision stage to be allowed to produce the additional evidence which was complementary in nature to the original evidence

Production of the additional evidence was rightly disallowed by the Appellate Court below.

Revision petition which had been submitted after 95 days, ostensibly had been filed five days after the expiry of the period of limitation

Copies of impugned judgment and decree were received by the petitioner, five days after filing application for issuance of copies of said judgment and decree

Day when the judgment and decree was passed, and five days spent in obtaining the copies, if excluded, the revision was filed after 89 days of the pronouncing of the judgment and drawing of the decree which would be deemed to have been filed within period of limitation as S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was made applicable to proceedings under S.115, C.P.C.

Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, house-trespass, criminal intimidation, rioting, common object

Revision petition

Limitation

Extension of time

Scope

Application filed by the respondent/complainant seeking arrest of petitioner/accused was rejected by the Magistrate/Trial Court

Said rejection was assailed by the complainant through revision petition, which revision had been accepted by Appellate Court below

Petitioner had alleged that revision petition filed by the complainant being time-barred, should have been outrightly dismissed on the point of limitation

Validity

Revision petition could not be rejected on mere ground of delay or laches

What required the court to observe, was that a revision petition should be filed within a reasonable period of time, which could change from case to case; and situation to situation

Rule to file a revision petition within 30 days against an order complained of was not inflexible; and time could be extended in exceptional cases

Trial Court/Magistrate in the present case had traversed beyond its jurisdictional authority by misinterpreting the law and passing an order in favour of petitioner/ accused without caring for the law on the subject; even in the slightest term and dealt with the matter in an unlawful and ridiculous manner

Mere technicalities, could not be taken into consideration to annul a lawful judgment passed by revisional court.

Legal heirs of deceased respondent being necessary party having not been impleaded, revision petition was incompetent on account of non-impleading of necessary parties.

Revision had been directed against the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed

Application for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was filed along with the memorandum of appeal, but no order had been passed on that application

Before deciding main appeal, Appellate Court ought to have decided the application for condonation of delay

Impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, was set aside and case was remanded with direction to decide application for condonation of delay before passing judgment and decree in appeal within a period of two months.

In case of non-communication of such objection to petitioner, such period would be reckoned front date of knowledge of petitioner or his counsel

Spirit of law was that a matter would become time barred only if nature of objection was such that same could only be removed by defaulting party himself

Law never intended to make proceedings barred by time due to non-compliance of such objection by defaulting party in tinge

Revision petition, if filed within prescribed period of limitation, could not be dismissed at later stage on ground that such objection was either not removed or removed beyond period specified by office.

Delay in filing revision could be condoned by superior courts in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction, if petitioner established that delay was not intentional, but was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond his control.

Revision petition being without merits, was dismissed, while order of the Trial Court was upheld.

Defendant along with his written statement filed application contending that no valid power-of-attorney existed in favour of said attorney

Trial Court allowing said application of defendant, dismissed the suit vide impugned order and the plaintiff had sought setting aside of that order being contrary to law and facts in revision

Revision petition was also filed by the same attorney

Impugned order showed that despite giving several opportunities, alleged attorney of the plaintiff had failed to produce power-of-attorney allegedly executed in his favour by the plaintiff before the Trial Court

Power-of-attorney filed along with revision petition did not pertain to the present case

Alleged attorney and the counsel for the plaintiff had tried to mislead the court by placing power-of-attorney on record, which was not relevant in the case, which was highly objectionable

Revision petition had been filed by a person having no valid legal authority vested in him for filing the petition on behalf of the plaintiff, petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Contention of respondent was that revision petition was time-barred and S.115, C.P.C. did not provide for any application for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908; on the other hand petitioner had pleaded that even if the petition was time-barred, High Court could exercise its suo motu powers under S.115, C.P.C. to correct the jurisdictional error committed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Period of limitation having been prescribed under S.115, C.P.C., had rendered the same as a "special law" in view of the provisions of S.29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908

Provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay were not applicable to revision petitions

High Court need not invoke its suo motu revisional powers to condone the delay in filing petition.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petition being time barred, was dismissed.

During execution of decree, judgment-debtors filed an objection petition and during proceedings, Executing Court appointed a Local Commissioner for spot inspection and submission of report

Decree-holders filed an appeal against said order which was accepted by the Appellate Court and judgment-debtors had filed revision against acceptance of said appeal

Impugned judgment of Appellate Court would not require any interference by High Court. in is revisional jurisdiction; firstly far the fact that Executing Court being not a civil court for the purposes of O.XXVI, R.1, C.P.C., it could not appoint Local Commissioner in furtherance of execution of a decree; secondly as during proceedings, in the Trial Court similar exercise was taken up by the Trial Court and report of Local Commissioner, then appointed, lent support to the judgment and decree in the main contest between parties

Appointment of Local Commissioner, besides being unwarranted during execution proceedings, would only tantamount to the re-opening of the matter

No ambiguity existing regarding the decree under execution, controversy between the parties could be set at' rest by recording pro and contra evidence by the Executing Court on questioned points.