AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.- Accused applicant Muhammad Azad alias , Ejaz is facing trial before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi in .Sessions Case No. 106 of 2005 pertaining to F.I.R. No.03 of 2005 under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi East.
' Heard Mr. Lai Chand Mamtani, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Sabir Haider, Advocate for the State.
' It is alleged that deceased William Chouhan was on illicit terms with coaccused Mst. Salma since a period of four years who also offered to marry her; further that she felt sick of him after the said period, and asked her brother coaccused Saleem to do away with William Chauhan by paying amount of Rs.50,000 to him (co-accused) who initially administered the diazepam tablets to him and then took him to co-accused persons. Whereby he was done to death by slaughtering him from his neck.
Learned counsel for the State has stated at the bar, after going through the police papers, the excepting statement of co-accused Muhammad Saleem, thereby- implicating the present applicant Muhammad Azad alias Ejaz, there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the alleged incident of this case, it is a settled principle' of law that a statement of co-accused alone thereby implicating the applicant accused in the case would be of no consequence for the purpose of conviction of the applicant accused for the offence so alleged. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail provided that he shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further provided that in case the sufficient evidence is recorded by the trial Court so that he may get implicated for the offence as alleged against him then the prosecution shall be at liberty to move the trial Court for cancellation of the bail.
2007 YLR 1599 [Peshawar] Before Hamid Farooq Durrani, J MUZAFFAR KHAN and 5 others---Petitioners versus S. ABDUL KHALIQ and others---Respondents Civil Revision No.192 of 2004, decided on 30th October, 2006.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- ----S. 115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Revi sion- - -Limitation- - - Computation of period---Principles---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction, having concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, petitioners had filed revision petition against said concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below with a delay of 45/46 days---Counsel for petitioners had contended that time consumed in obtaining certified copies of the record pertaining to the file of Trial Court, could also be considered as same would be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing revision--Validity---Contention was repelled, as in the ordinary course, the copies of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were obtained much before the decision of the appeal---Besides, in the circumstances of the case, it was the date of judgment and decree of the Appellate Court which operated as a starting point for period of limitation for filing revision petition before High Court---Said period, in circumstances, was to be computed keeping in view the dates of application, preparation and issuance of certified copies by the Appellate Court---In the present case, even if the time was calculated from the date of obtaining copies of Trial Court record, revision petition was still barred by 11 days---As period of limitation had been provided in S.115, C.P.C., the provisions regarding the condonation of delay as provided in law of limitation, would not attract to the matter---Besides the revision of concurrent findings recorded by two courts also demanded prompt action on part of the party preferring the petition for the purpose. [p. 1600] A M. Sultan Khan Jadoon for Petitioners.
Masud-ur-Rehman Awan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th October, 2006.
JUDGMENT HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.---The revision petition in hand was filed questioning the judgments and decrees passed by learned Civil - Judge-IV Abbottabad on 14-10-2000 and Additional District Judge, Abbottabad on 22-7-2003, respectively. The learned trial Court partially decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding the property mentioned in the heading of the plaint. While deciding two appeals arising out of the said judgment and decree, as filed by both the parties, the learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of petitioners through a single judgment.
2. In the revision petition in hand preadmission notice was ordered to be given to the respondents on 14-2-2005. Learned counsel appearing for respondents on 15-5-2006 raised a preliminary objection regarding the petition in hand being barred by time. On the said date the learned counsel for the petitioners requested for time to prepare the brief in order to counter the said preliminary objection. Similarly, request for time was made at further two occasions. The matter was finally argued today, on behalf of both the parties, in respect of the preliminary objection.
3. The perusal of record reveals that the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Court was passed on 22-7-2003.
The certified copies of the judgment and decree sheet, as attached with the petition, were applied for on 26-7-2003. The said copies were made available to the petitioners on 19-8-2003 whereas the petition in hand was filed on 3-1-2004. It could thus be seen that the petition was filed with an apparent delay of 45/46 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the time consumed in obtaining the certified copies of the record pertaining to the file of learned trial Court may also be considered and the same shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the petition in hand. This submission of learned counsel would have no force as in the ordinary course the copies of the judgment and decree by the trial Court are obtained much before the decision of the appeal.
Besides, in the circumstances of the case, it is the date of judgment and decree of the appellate Court which operates as a starter for period of limitation for filing of revision petition before this Court. The said period, therefore, is to be computed keeping in view the dates of application, preparation and issuance of the certified copies by the appellate Court. In the present case even if the time is calculated, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the date of obtaining copies of trial Court record, the revision petition in hand becomes barred by 11 days.
5. The period of limitation has been provided in-built by section 115, C. P . C. Therefore, the provisions regarding the condemnation of delay, as provided in law of limitation, would not attract to the matter. Besides, the revision of concurrent findings recorded by two Courts also demands prompt action on the part of the party preferring the petition for the purpose. The Petitioner in the instant case have manifestly remained indolent in approaching this court in provisional jurisdiction .
6. The revision petition in hand being barred by considerable time is dismissed in limine.