Find a Lawyer

(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑----

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S . 115‑‑Decree for possession through pre‑emption‑ Revision‑--Limitation‑‑Revision petition filed after expiry of more than 3 years from passing of appellate decree impugned therein and there was no prayer made for condonation of delay and muchless was there any explanation furnished for the period which elapsed after the prescribed period of limitation‑‑Provisions of Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908 would be attracted and such petition, held, was liable to be dismissed as being barred by time.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 115(1), proviso‑‑Revision‑‑Neither a copy of written statement nor copies of the evidence and documents produced in the Trial Court were furnished not only that there was no prayer made for their production being dispensed with and muchless had any case been set up for dispensation‑‑Appellate Court had reversed the Trial Courts decree after considering evidence existing on the record‑‑Held, in the absence of copies of such documents, petitioner stood incapacitated from making out any case for reconsideration and revision petition was liable to be disposed of on the basis of present record without. sending for the record of the Trial Court as was enjoined by section 115, Civil Procedure Code

G.S Khan vice Sh. Zamir Hussain for Petitioner

Decree for possession through pre‑emption regarding 7 Kanals 16 Marlas of agricultural land situated in Pind Parian, tehsil and district Rawalpindi, which had been sold by its owner Ghulam Muhammad to six vendee‑defendents for a consideration of Rs.2,000 by means of mutation No.228 sanctioned on 13‑9‑1974, was passed in favour of Safdar plaintiff‑respondent No.l on 9‑2‑1983 by the learned District Judge, Islamabad upon reversing the trial Court's decree dated 21‑2‑1978 dismissing his suit on the basis of findings adverse to him returned under issue No.l relating to superior right of pre‑emption.

2. This Civil Revision was originally instituted on 20‑1‑1986 in an incomplete form by Ghulam Akbar, one of the six vendees, by impleading the other five as respondents, to assail the appellate decree dated 9‑2‑1983 and upon its being returned by the office for the purpose of completion within three days, it was refiled only on 24‑2‑1986 after removing the office objections. There is no formal prayer made for condonation of delay. Although there is no limitation as such provided for in the Limitation Act for filing revision petitions and, by practice, they are filed within the normal period of 90 days available for filing second appeals, yet, since the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act gets attracted to this revision petition filed, after completion, after the expiry of more than 3 years from the passing of the appellate decree impugned herein and there is no prayer made for condonation of delay and muchless is there any explanation furnished for the period which elapsed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed as being barred by time.

3. Even if a lenient view is taken to accept the date of its incomplete institution (20‑1‑1986) to be determinative in this behalf, the petitioner cannot avoid the fatal consequences of inordinate delay and unexplained laches of almost 3 years involved in maintaining this revision petition inasmuch as no proper explanation has been furnished for the purpose. There, however, appears only a bald assertion in sub‑para (viii) of the memo of revision to the effect that all the six vendees had maintained an incompetent Regular Second Appeal bearing No.78 of 1983 which had been dismissed in default but the relevant dates have not been mentioned.

Furthermore, the revision petition has not even been constituted in accordance with the requirements of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C . P. C . in so far as neither a copy of the written‑statement has been filed nor have the copies of the evidence and the documents produced in the trial Court been ‑furnished. So much so that there is no prayer made for their production being dispensed with and muchless has any case been set up for the purpose. Since learned appellate Judge has reversed the trial Court's decree F after considering the evidence existing on the record, therefore, in the absence of their copies petitioner stands incapacitated from making out any case for reconsideration and this revision petition is entitled to be disposed of on the basis of this record, without sending for the record of the trial Court, as is enjoined by section 115 of the C. P. C.

4. Upshot of the foregoing is that there does not emerge any case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine.

M.B.A./G‑79/L Revision

dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.