Civil Revision

The applicants filed a civil revision challenging a judgment dated 08.05.2025 and obtained a certified copy on 19.05.2025, which was received by them on 17.07.2025

The civil revision was first filed on 08.09.2025, but on 11.09.2025 the office of the Court raised objections and returned the file for removal of those objections

The file was received back by the applicants on 16.09.2025, and the civil revision was ultimately re-filed on 27.09.2025

No explanation was provided for the period between receiving the file with objections and the date of re-filing

Question requiring determination before the High Court was "whether the delay in re-filing the civil revision, after receiving the file back with objections, could be condoned when no explanation was given for the intervening period?"

Held: For the interregnum period no explanation seeking condonation of delay was given, therefore, the delay could not be condoned

Office of the High Court raised certain objections to the civil revision on 11.09.2025 with the stipulation that it was to be re-filed, whereupon, the case file was received by the applicants on 16.09.2025, however, it was re-filed on 27.09.2025, thus, even if it was considered that when the civil revision was filed, it was within time, however, when the office objections were raised and time was given to remove the same, period of limitation started to run against the applicants as and when the file was received by the applicant and since no valid explanation had been given for the interregnum period (when the file was received and re-filed) as it was not the case of the applicants that they were not aware of the office objections or had not received any intimation qua the same, as they received the case file on 16.09.2025, however, they re-filed the same on 27.09.2025, therefore, when the civil revision was re-filed, the period of limitation as contemplated in S.115 C.P.C and Art.162-A of the Limitation Act, 1908 had already elapsed and as no sufficient cause had been given for the interregnum period, hence, the delay in re-filing the civil revision, which was re-filed after the expiry of period of limitation of the civil revision, thus, could not be condoned

Since the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition had been dismissed, therefore, present revision petition was also dismissed being barred by time.

Previously, the limitation for filing a civil revision was provided in S.115 of C.P.C (90 days from the date of order, judgment and decree), however, since S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable, hence, the delay could not have been condoned, however, in view of an amendment made in First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 a new Article (Article 162-A) has been inserted, which spells out the period for filing a civil revision, thus, as a natural corollary to that S.5 of the Act has been made applicable to S.115 C.P.C, however, in order to seek refuge of the said provision sufficient cause has to be given by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay.

When office of High Court raises an objection to a petition and gives time for removing the same, if till the expiry of the prescribed period, the objection is not removed or no permission is sought from the Court for extension in the given time, the limitation will start running from the date when the given/prescribed time expires.

In cases in which certain objections are raised by the office, which render the institution of case in itself invalid or incompetent should be held to be time barred unless the objections or deficiencies indicated by the office are met within the time specified by the office

At the bottom of objection-sheets, received by the petitioner, it was clearly stipulated that the objections were to be removed within three (3) days, however, the petitioner despite receiving the files remained unable to return the same after removing the objections within the given time period

In the applications for condonation of delay it was stated that the counsel was shifting his office, whereas, in the course of argument the said counsel attributed the delay to some fellow advocate

In the entire applications no dates of shifting the office or when the files were traced were given

Delay in re-filing the civil revisions was about fourteen months, thus, such a plea was repelled being implausible and unbelievable that the file could not be located in such a long period

Civil revisions were dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

No record of ailment of petitioner was appended with the application and mere mentioning of advanced age of the petitioner was not an excuse

Ignorance of office process was not a good ground for condonation of delay, as such the delay was not condoned as after expiry of statutory period of limitation the verdicts in question had attained the status of past and closed transaction

After expiry of the period of limitation a valuable right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party which could not be taken away rather convincing reasons had to be furnished in this regard and the absence thereof disentitled a delinquent litigant from discretionary relief

Civil revision was blatantly time barred

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed along with the civil revision, in circumstances.

Present revision petition was blatantly time barred, as such there was no need to decide the issue raised therein on merits.

Under Art.203 of the Constitution read with S.115, C.P.C, High Court being a supervisory and revisional Court has suo motu jurisdiction to look into the matter where any illegality has been committed by the Courts below and to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice as it thinks fit even if the revision petition has been filed beyond the prescribed limitation

In judicial system, the law of limitation has its own significance relating to the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings

Limitation Act, 1908 contains in its fold remedial provisions like Ss. 5, 12 & 14, which empowers the court to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case, provided these provisions have been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application, the court at its own shall not be competent to make applicable the provision of these sections

Under C.P.C. there are several provisions where Limitation Act, 1908, has expressly been made applicable to condone the delay in filing the proceedings if sufficient cause exists in favour of the party who seeks the condonation of delay but Limitation Act, 1908, has not been made applicable in accordance with S. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 on the revision petition under S. 115 of C.P.C. as it is special law for the purpose of limitation, providing its own limitation.

Section 115 of C.P.C. provides its own limitation of 90 days, thus, for law of limitation as per S. 29 it is a special provision and does not fall under the exceptions as provided by S. 29 of Limitation Act, 1908

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable to civil revision petitions.

Section 115 of C.P.C. provides its own limitation which is 90 days from the decision of the subordinate court and similarly the High Court has power to suo motu call for 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 to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, then no limitation is provided in such eventuality and such suo motu exercise can be taken by the High Court at any time

Scrutiny of S. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, reveals that where period of limitation has been prescribed in the special law such as S. 115, C.P.C., for filing of revision petition, thus, being a special law for the purpose of limitation as it provides its own limitation, S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has no applicability

Subsection (2) S. 29 of Limitation Act, 1908, provides exceptions about applicability of Limitation Act, 1908 and stipulates that Limitation Act, 1908, shall not be applicable except S. 4, Ss. 9 to 18 and S. 22 of Limitation Act, 1908

So applicability of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (condonation of delay) is out of question and, therefore, not applicable to the revision petition.

Petitioner /plaintiff instituted the suit against respondent (concerned Deputy Commissioner) only and, after dismissal of the suit, he preferred appeal against the very (one) respondent

Petitioner / plaintiff, however, impleaded three other officials also in the civil revision filed before the High Court

Held, that the present civil revision was filed without seeking any appropriate amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which fact alone had rendered the present civil revision non-maintainable

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Revision was filed within one month of the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court and it was not hit by limitation or for that matter by doctrine of laches

High Court had power to convert one type of proceedings into another kind

High Court converted Civil Revision into a Constitutional petition

Objection was disposed of accordingly.

Concurrent findings on facts should not be interfered in routine, but in an extra-ordinary circumstance, when the courts below have committed serious jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.

High Court, in the case of concurrent findings, normally does not interfere unless the same are a result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the courts below.

Normally High Court in revisional jurisdiction is slow in interfering in concurrent findings of two courts below but where there is prima facie misreading as well departure from settled principles of law High Court is always competent to disturb such concurrent findings.

Ordinarily, in matters wherein, any case is time barred the Courts have always followed a strict view, whereas, delay of each day has to be explained for seeking condonation of delay; but at the same time, when it is a case wherein revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. is being exercised by the High Court, this aspect has to be looked into with a somewhat different view

Such is premised on the fact that the Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction has a vast discretion as compared to any other proceedings coming up before the Court

Consistent view is that the Court is never robbed of its suo motu jurisdiction only for the reason that a revision application requesting invoking of such jurisdiction is filed beyond the period prescribed thereunder

Revisional jurisdiction is corrective and supervisory in nature; hence, no harm would be caused if the Court seized of a revision petition exercises its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below

Such fact and the powers of the Courts can be ascertained from the plain language used in S. 115, C.P.C. and the intention of the Legislature, whereas, exercise of this jurisdiction if allowed to go into the spiral of technicalities and restrictions of limitation, the very purpose behind conferring such jurisdiction would be defeated.

Section 115 of C.P.C. applies only to the cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise or the irregular exercise of jurisdiction.

Revision under S.115, C.P.C., is a substantive right.

Suo motu jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., can be exercised by High Court or the District Court in a case where a revision petition has been filed after prescribed period of limitation depending on the discretion of the Court because exercise of revisional jurisdiction in any form is discretionary

Suo motu jurisdiction can be exercised, if the conditions for its exercise are satisfied

Revisional jurisdiction is pre-eminently and in essence corrective and supervisory, therefore, there is absolutely no harm if the Court seized of a revision petition exercises its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by a subordinate Court.

Petitioner assailed acceptance of an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the Additional District Judge through a revision petition, which was barred by more than 50 days and was accompanied by an application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Validity

Petitioner had cited medical treatment as sole ground for delay in filing the civil revision and that too without attaching any supporting document to substantiate his claim

Medical ground was not overwhelming ground to condone delay unless each and every day of delay was sufficiently explained to the satisfaction of Court

Petitioner was not prejudiced, in any manner, from the passing of impugned order, since the appeal was deemed pending before the District Court and would be decided on its own merits

Civil revision, being barred by time, was dismissed.

Plea raised by plaintiff was that since both parties were Pakistani citizens by origin who married in Pakistan under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1965 and their marriage was registered in Pakistan, therefore, UK law was not the applicable on parties but that of Pakistan

Validity

Parties having immigrated to and got UK nationality, were UK nationals and subject of UK laws as well as to laws of Pakistan and jurisdiction of UK courts could not be curtailed

Plaintiff could not establish any of exceptions given in S.13, C.P.C. attracted in his case

High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction as there were concurrent findings of law and fact against plaintiff which were immune from interference unless there was some gross illegality floating on surface

Plaintiff failed to point out any illegality therefore no interference was warranted by High Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court under revisional jurisdiction is fully competent to examine record of any subordinate Court and if any jurisdictional error towards passing of any order is found, then to cure the same.

Applicants were legal representatives of a party to a civil revision and contended that said party was now deceased and his legal representatives were not in knowledge of the judgment deciding said revision petition

Applicants moved application under S.12(2), C.P.C. to set aside said judgment on grounds of fraud

Contention of the applicants was that delay in filing of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. ought to be condoned

Validity

Counsel for the deceased did not submit any affidavit to show that he had no knowledge about fixation for hearing of the revision application

Court had power to decide a revision application under S.115 of C.P.C. even if the parties did not appear on the date when it was fixed

Under O.XXII, R.4, C.P.C. proceedings did not abate on demise of one of the defendants or the sole defendants and it was duty of one of the legal representatives under O.VIII, R.13, C.P.C. to give intimation to the court about demise of a party and to provide a list of legal representatives

No such effort was made by the applicants and they could not be allowed to say that they were condemned unheard

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. fell under Art.181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 under which a period of three years limitation was provided and the present application was filed after more than five years

Applicants had been appearing in partition proceedings for suit property and were therefore in knowledge of the impugned judgment

No ground therefore existed to condone delay

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant had filed civil revision before the High Court during pendency of which both parties compromised and a consent decree was passed

Subsequent to the consent decree, respondent filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the consent decree/compromise, whereafter High Court decided the civil revision on merits

Validity

Application of respondent under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not decided

Without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under S. 12(2), C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits

Impugned judgment of High Court whereby it decided the civil revision on merits was set aside in circumstances and Supreme Court directed that application filed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C., shall remain pending with the High Court and shall be decided at the earliest

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Once revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. was admitted to regular hearing, then High Court should appraise the record and decide the same on merits instead of dismissing the same for non-appearance, even if both or one of the parties failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing.

Impugned order was passed on 14-9-2009 and the petitioner applied for certified copy on 15-9-2009 which was prepared on 19-9-2009

On 3-11-2009, the office of the Deputy Registrar returned the revision petition with eight objections advising petitioner to remove the same within 3-days

Petitioner refiled the case on 26-12-2009 which was fixed for 19-1-2010

Office of the Deputy Registrar again returned the revision petition with objections and also directed to file application for condonation of delay but the petitioner did not remove objections till 15-3-2010

Petitioner refiled the case without complying with the order of the office of Deputy Registrar and without submitting application for condonation of delay

Validity

Petitioner had not moved an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 to prove his bona fide that as to what were the circumstances that he did not remove the office objections within the stipulated period and that what was the explanation for delay in re filing of revision petition after stipulated period

Revision petition was barred by time.

Limitation-Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was not applicable in matters of revision petition.