KH. MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.--- This appeal by way of leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 18-5-2005.
2. As a very simple question is involved in this case, therefore, there is no need to discuss in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the appellant challenged the correctness of an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Dadyal on 27-12-2003 through a revision petition in the High Court. An objection was raised from the other side that the revision petition is barred by limitation, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed summarily. The learned Chief Justice dismissed the same on this ground vide order under challenge dated 18-5-2005.
3. Raja Saadat Ali Kayani, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that no doubt the revision petition is barred by one day if the time consumed in obtaining copies of judgment etc. And the day when the order of the Senior Civil Judge was announced is excluded but, according to him, for doing complete justice between the litigant parties, the objection of limitation should have not been given much importance in this case. He placed reliance on a case of High Court of AJ&K titled Muhammad Sharif and others v. Azad Government and others PLD 1984 AJ&K 22 wherein on the basis of law, as it was at that time, it is laid down that no limitation is prescribed for revision.
Therefore, practice of entertaining revision within 90 days is not an absolute rule. In that case the matter raised in revision petition was decided on merits. The learned counsel also relied upon another case titled Mst. Baggi and others v. Mst. Jan Begum and others 1985 CLC 1573. In this case it was laid down that as limitation is not prescribed for availing revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, therefore, the High Court in suitable cases can entertain revision petition at any time even under its inherent jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand Ch. Ali Muhammad, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that an amendment has been adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir under which the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in civil matters can be availed within 90 days. Now under rule 44(2) of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, no civil revision petition shall be presented after 90 days from the date of impugned order. However, the High Court has got jurisdiction to condone the delay if some `sufficient cause' is disclosed in this regard. But according to him no cause has been disclosed in the application. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the appellant herein was rightly dismissed by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. Reliance was placed by him on Muhammad Ayub and others v. Zarif Khan and others 1988 CLC 33. In this case revision petition was filed after 10 months against the finding of the appellate Court. An application was moved seeking condonation of delay. However, it was held that as the revision petition was filed beyond 90 days and no justifiable ground was given in the application moved for condonation of delay, therefore, the same was dismissed as barred by limitation. He also relied upon Manager Jammu and Kashmir Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 wherein it was laid down that the High Court could entertain revision petitions even beyond 90 days if satisfied as regards delay in filing the same.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The appellant had filed revision petition in the High Court challenging the legality and correctness of order of Senior Civil Judge, Dadyal passed on 27-12- 2003. Even though the revision petition was barred by limitation but in para.9 of the memo. Of revision petition it was pleaded that the same is well within time. Even no ground was taken for condonation of delay. Rules are framed for smooth functioning of the judicial system. Under rule 44(2) of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules a party is required to file its revision petition within 90 days from the date of impugned order. If the same is filed beyond that period, it has to furnish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, as said earlier, the appellant was not cautious of the period of limitation. Therefore, no ground was taken in the revision petition for condonation of delay. Even before us no such ground has been taken. The High Court in the circumstances of the case; therefore, without passing favourable order in favour of appellant about the limitation was not justified to decide the controversy on merits. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation.
6. This appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed. As the appeal has been dismissed on technical ground, therefore, we refrain from passing any order as to costs.