This civil revision was filed on 18.1.1999 against judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kharian confirming findings of the learned trial Judge passed in his judgment and decree dated 16.5.1988 and thus dismissing appeal of the petitioners. Admittedly, an application for the grant of certified copies of the impugned appellate judgment and decree was made on 22.10.1998. The certified copies of the said judgment and decree were immediately prepared and delivered to the petitioners on the same date i,e, 22.10.1998.
2. The learned counsel for the parties computed the period of limitation jointly and stated that the present civil revision was filed after 97/98 days of the appellate judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998. The learned counsel for the respondents seriously objected that the civil revision as such was barred by time and had been filed by the petitioners after seen or eight days of the period of limitation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners through a valiant effort to explain his stand point that the civil revision was within time, relied upon the joint reading of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The consequence which he endeavoured to canvass was that Section 115 CPC compulsorily required filing of the civil revision along with the "copies of pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court". He thus stated that the time consumed for obtaining the certified copies of the pleadings and documents have also to be reckoned in computation of the period of limitation. Pressing the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act to the benefit of his client, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon sub-section (3) thereof to state that "the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment from which it is founded shall also be excluded." He thus stated that the petitioners' civil revision as filed was not beyond the period of limitation because the petitioners applied for the grant of certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1998 of the learned trial Court and judgment and decree dated 23.12.1988.
The same were prepared and delivered on 14.1.1999. He thus stated that the period of limitation was to be computed by the exclusion of time also consumed in obtaining the trial Court's judgment and decree.
4. Heard.
5. The endeavour made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to save the civil revision is interestingly intriguing. His arguments are however based upon part reading of the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Second Proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 CPC being relevant is referred to here. It prescribes that "such application shall be made within 90 days of the decision of the subordinate Courts." In the present case, the decision by the learned First Appellate Court was made on 12.10.1998 which infact was challenged through the present civil revision on the purported ground of material irregularity committed by the learned. First Appellate Court by not accepting petitioners' appeal. The petitioners had filed their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1998 passe by the learned trial Court. Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court was within time which on consideration and hearing was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998. The civil revision against the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 16.5.1998 before this Court was not maintainable because the remedy of appeal was availed of by the petitioners. The civil revision was thus filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998 of the learned First Appellate Court.
6. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act also do not help the case of the petitioners. Without going into the question of applicability of the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act to the civil revisions, per the observations made in the case of "Faizullah and others vs. Rustam & others" (2003 PLD Peshawar 217), cumulative reading of sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act shows that the time requisite for obtaining the copy of a decree is excludable as well as the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on which such decree is founded. Sub-section (3) of course specifically prescribes that "the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a judgment from which it is founded shall be excluded."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners intriguingly interprets that the judgment referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act does not relate to the judgment upon which the decree appealed against or reviewed against or sought to be revised is founded upon but the same relates to the judgment of the Court of first instance against which the appeal was filed and stood decided. Such interpretation will be defeative of the law of limitation; the object of which is to put a period cap for each, available remedy. Sub-section (2) talks of the decree appealed against etc. and sub-section (3) obviously relates to the judgment upon which such decree is founded. The provisions of sub-section (3) cannot be stretched to include the judgment or the decree against which the remedy of appeal was availed of.
8. Furthermore, in the present case, the date of the application for the certified copies and that of the supply of the certified copies respectively of the decree and the judgment were not different therefore excludable period under the provisions of said sub-sections (2) & (3) will be the same.
Subject to the availability of the period of limitation, if separate applications on different dates had been made to obtain the certified copies of the decree and the judgment and the copies thereto had been separately supplied on different dates, the petitioners could have claimed that minus the overlapping period, they were entitled to compute the limitation for civil revision from the later date.
9. It is also well settled that the application for obtaining a copy of the judgment upon which is founded, even if made separately, has to be filed within the period of limitation to avail of the provisions of Section 12(2) & (3) of the Limitation Act.
10.This provision does not leave it to the option of a litigant or a petitioner to apply for and obtain a copy as and when he chooses and thus develop a case for the exclusion of time. He cannot be allowed the freedom to apply for and obtain the certified copies of the impugned decree or its judgment on different dates outside the prescribed period of limitation only with the object to save the period of limitation. The petitioner has to restrict himself to the normal statutory requirements in keeping with the provisions of limitation prescribed to seek copies and the consequence exclusion.
11. In the present case, the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kharian on 12.10.1998. The application to obtain certified copies of the judgment as well as the decree was made on 22.10.1998. The same were delivered on the same date i,e, 22.10.1998. The civil revision was filed against the said judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998 on 18.1.1999 which was beyond the period of limitation.
12. Furthermore, the above referred second proviso to Section 115 CPC provides that the decision of the learned subordinate Court is to be availed of within "90 days of the decision of the subordinate Court". This provision is though parallel to the provisions of sub-sections (2) & (3) but is not in conflict therewith. Even if the provisions of Section 115 CPC and B those of Section 12 of the Limitation Act are read as interwoven, no contradiction arises. These provisions would only mean that excluding the period consumed in obtaining the certified copies of the decree and the judgment upon which such decree is founded, the civil revision shall be filed within 90 days thereof.
13. Also that the first proviso to Section 115 CPC only requires furnishing of copies of the pleadings and the documents in the civil revision over and above the impugned order/decree/judgment of the subordinate Court to support the civil revision. This requirement of filing the support pleadings and the documents along with the civil revision cannot by any C stretch reinforce the case of the petitioners and justify delayed filing of the civil revision on the pretext of supply of the certified copies of such documents after the prescribed period of limitation for the civil revision.
14. Consequently, this civil revision filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days is hereby rejected as being barred by time. There shall be no order as to the costs.