' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---A suit filed by the petitioner on 13-5-1993 for possession of the suit property was resisted by the respondents by filing a written statement. Issues were framed on 8-5- 1994. On 25-7-1994 his evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
He filed a first appeal which was dismissed for non-filing of the process fee on 22-10-1995. He applied for a copy on 26-10-1995 which was prepared and delivered on 27-11-1995. C.R. No,91-D of 1997 was filed in this Court on 21-1-1996. As per computation made by the office. The civil revision was filed on the 58th day of limitation. On 28-1-1996 some objections were raised by the office. The civil revision was re-filed after removing the objections on 18-7-1996. The learned counsel made a note that the file was received back on 2-6-1996. Again objections were raised that an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, be filed and further that objection at No,5 of the Objection Memo. Has not been removed. The civil revision was re-filed on 29-12-1996. It came up before the Court on -12-2-1997 when for reasons recorded, preadmission notice was issued.
Thereafter, the case came up before the Court on 10-3-1997 and the learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court, dismissed the civil revision as barred by time.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the circumstances of the case, the civil revision could not be dismissed on the said ground as it was not barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the civil revision has been correctly dismissed for the said reason. He refers the cases of Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others 1991 CLC 269 and Muhammad Ishaque v. Administrator (PR) and others 1994 CLC 1195.
3. We have gone through the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. Now according to the Objection Memo, certified copies of the decrees of the learned Court of appeal and the learned trial Court were not appended. We find that as per report on the copy form regarding Court of appeal, it was reported that since the case was dismissed for non-filing of the process fee, a decree sheet has not been prepared. Similar was the case with learned trial Court. Next objection was regarding the fresh power of attorney which was followed by an objection to the opening form and then signing of the index form and filing of better copies of pages 23 to 25 of the file. Upon a reading of the impugned order in juxtaposition to the facts glaring on the face of the' record, we find that it suffers from an error apparent on the record inasmuch as the same has been passed without any reference to the records. A certified copy of an application stands appended with the civil revision wherein the petitioner had prayed before the learned trial Court that only his statement is to be recorded and that the order closing the evidence be re-called. No order appears to have been passed on this application. Similarly, the appeal was dismissed on a hypertechnical ground. There is no cavil that the civil revision was filed in Court within the prescribed time.
4. It may be noted here that section 115, C.P.C. Empowers this Court to call for the records of any case decided. The proviso calls upon the applicant to furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court. Unlike section 96, C.P.C. Read with Order XLI, rule 1, C.P.C., there is no mandate for filing of the copy of the decree. To our mind, the only objection which appears to be substantial were not warranted by law and further that it had come on record that the decree sheets had not been prepared. In somewhat similar circumstances, a similar order passed by this Court was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Sabiran Bi and Ahmad Khan and another 2000 SCM R 847, with the following observations:-- "Learned counsel for respondents further agreed that under section 115(2), C.P.C. It was obligatory upon petitioner to have furnished copies of pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court along with memo. Of petition and due to non-compliance of this provision will not be liable to be entertained and Court is competent to dismiss the same. So far as this legal provision as referred by the learned counsel is concerned, there is no doubt about it but with reference to proposition under discussion in the instant case, it is suffice to observe that if revision petition suffers from defects i.e, non-filing of pleadings etc. Still it cannot be dismissed being barred by time and in such situation, at the best the petition could be treated as not maintainable. It is important to note that this Court had always emphasised for decision of cases on merits instead of disposing of the matters on hypettechnical grounds."
5. The review application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 10-3-1997 passed in Civil Revision No,91-D of 1997 is set aside.
6. The office shall now list the civil revision before any available Single Bench on a date to be fixed within three weeks.