2010 Y L R 1908




Before Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, J


MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others—Petitioners




BAGH ALI and others—Respondents


Civil Revision No.251 of 2010, decided on 4th March, 2010.


Rai Moin-ud-Din for Petitioners.





HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.—Through this civil revision, petitioner calls in question the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below first judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20-6-2009 and second judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, dated 16-7-2007.


2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed execution petition titled Bagh Ali v. Ghulam Rasul in the Executing Court, in which petitioners are the sureties of respondent No.3 judgment debtor. The property of the petitioner was attached on 25-9-2003 by the learned Executive Court and appointed District Officer, Vehari as local commissioner to sell the attached property in open auction vide order dated 14-4-2005. The attached property of the petitioners was sold in violation of the law and the learned Executing Court did not confirm the auction due to non-payment of decretal amount vide order dated 25-11-2005 and ordered re-auction of the attached property. Respondent No.3 judgment debtor submitted an application to the effect that his own land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas should be auctioned and the property of the sureties petitioner may not be auctioned which was dismissed vide order, dated 6-1-2006 by the learned Executing Court. Halqa Patwari conducted auction proceedings on 27-1-2006. The petitioner filed application under Order XXI, rule 89, C.P.C. to set aside the sale, the executing Court directed to deposit entire amount and petitioner deposited the same which was dismissed vide order dated 16-7-2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 20-6-2009.


3. Without touching the case of the petitioner on merit petitioner was asked to cross the barrier of limitation as Civil Revision is 163 days time barred. At the very outset learned counsel was asked first to cross this objection of delay how it can be condoned in filing the civil revision. He made reliance on case reported as 1. Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Member Board of Revenue, Civil Secretariat, Quetta. 2 Collector District Lasbella at Uthal v. Ghulam Muhammad etc. (2001 SCMR 19). The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner.


4. The civil revision filed by the petitioner is admittedly time barred by 163 days and the petitioner is bound to explain each days delay in filing the civil revision. Under section 5 of Limitation Act (IX of 1908) condonation of delay, could be allowed only by invoking power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, but in view of availability of a clear provision of statute, possibility of exercising the inherent power of the Court, was excluded. Since the period of limitation had been prescribed in section 115, C.P.C. for filing of revision petition, which was 90 days same being a special law, provisions of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908, would be applicable and for the determination of period of limitation, all the provisions (except sections 4, 9 to 18 and section 22) would not apply to civil revisions. Delay in filing revision petition, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under section 115, C.P.C. could not be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 as the operation of said section was expressly excluded by section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908. In judicial system, law of limitation had got its own significance relating to prescribed for instituting proceedings. Sections 5, 12 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 empowered Court to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case, provided those provisions had been specifically made applicable in the proceedings and in absence of its application, the Court on its own would not be competent to make applicable to condone the delay in filing proceedings even if sufficient cause existed in favour of the party who sought condonation of delay, but said section, had not been made applicable in revision under section 115 C.P.C. Reliance can be placed on cases reported as Muhammad Inayat and 4 others v. Mst. Nisar Fatima (PLD 1994 SC 120), Muhammad Inayat and others v. Fateh Muhammad and others (PLD 2004 SC 778), Furqan Ahmad Khan v. Abdul Rehman and others (1997 SCMR 422), Allah Dino v. Muhammad Shah (2001 SCMR 286), Rehana Kausar and others v. Faqir Muhammad (2004 CLC 1202) and Haji Ahmad v. Noor Muhammad (2004 SCMR 1630). This civil revision is time-barred by 163 days. In the light of the dictum laid down in above referred cases delay cannot be condoned.


5. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.


A.R.K./M-205/L Petition dismissed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email