Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No.213 of 1985, decided on 26th March, 1985.
---Ss. 12(2), 114 &115 and O.XLVII, r.l--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 173 & 181--Review petition--Limitation--Application under section 12(2), C.P.C.--Limitation--Review petition filed under S.114 and O.XLVII, r.1, C.P.C.--Limitation would be governed by Art. 173, Limitation Act, 1908--Application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 could not be treated as review petition--Limitation would be governed by Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908--Application under S.12(2) having been filed within three years of judgment, held, was well in time.
Sikandar v. Saleh Muhammad 1983 C L C 1590 ref.
Malik Inayat Ullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1985 Pesh. 23 rel.
Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioners.
Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 26th March, 1985.
An application filed by the petitioners under section 12(2), C.P.C., challenging the validity of the judgment and decree, dated 4-2-1985, was dismissed by the learned trial Court by order, dated 14-1-1985 impugned through this revision, on the ground that it was barred by time. In holding so, it relied upon Sikandar v. Saleh Muhammad 1983 C L C 1590 in which a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court took the view that Article 173, governs the period of limitation for an application under section 12(2).
2. I have examined the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.4. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 have been heard in person. No one appears for respondent No.2 despite service through publication. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
3. My attention has been drawn by the petitioner's learned counsel to a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court in the case of Malik Inayat Ullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan reported as PLO 1985 Pesh. 23 wherein after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Karachi High Court, it has been held that an application under section 12(2) cannot be treated as a review petition and to such an application Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies. With respect I entirely agree with the reasoning given in the Peshawar judgment. Even the learned counsel for respondent No.4 agrees that Article 181 is applicable and not Article 173. The application in question having been filed within three years of the impugned judgment and decree, is well within time.
4. Accordingly this revision petition is accepted, impugned order set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for its disposal on merits in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T. Revision granted.