' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.-Through this civil revision, petitioner calls in question the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below first judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2-12-200 and second judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, dated 28-11-1996.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Layyah for the recovery of Rs,38,558 on 3-6-2004. Respondent/plaintiff is running a cloth shop and he used to sell clothes on credits and cash payment. The petitioner/ defendant was on friendly terms and on this basis the respondents used to give loan to the petitioner. The respondent/ plaintiff asked the petitioner time and again for return of the outstanding amount but he refused to give the same, therefore, he filed suit in the Court in the Court of Civil Judge, Layyah.
3. The suit was contested and the petitioner was served and he filed true facts of the case on record stating that he has not taken any loan which has been mentioned in the plaint by the respondent/ plaintiff by way of written statement. Learned Civil Judge directed both the parties to submit their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their conditions.
Learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff vide judgment and decreed dated 28-11-2006. Being aggrieved the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Layyah and the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah vide order dated 2-12-2008 dismissed the same.
4. Without touching the case of the petitioner on merit petitioner was asked to cross the barrier of limitation as Civil Revision is 14 days time barred. At the very outset learned counsel was put to question whether delay of 14 days can be condoned in filing the civil revision. He made reliance on case reported as Rehmat Bibi and 4 others v. Ghazanfar Hussain and another PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K)
25. The judgment is not about the civil revision but it relates to leave of the Court. While in the instant case question of limitation in filing civil revision in High Court is involved. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner.
5. The civil revision filed by the petitioner is admittedly time barred by 14 days and the petitioner is bound to explain each day's delay in the filing the civil revision. Under section 115 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) condonation of delay, could be allowed only by invoking power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, but in view of availability of a clear provision of statute, possibility of exercising the inherent power of the Court, was excluded. Since the period of limitation had been prescribed in section 115, C.P.C. For filing of revision petition, which was 90 days same being a special law, provisions of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908, would apply to civil revision. Delay in filing revision petition, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under section 115, A C.P.C. could not be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908. In judicial system, law of limitation had got its own significance relating to prescribed for instituting proceedings. Sections 5, 12 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 empowered Court to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case, provided those provisions had been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in absence of its B application, the Court on its own, would not be competent to make applicable to condone the delay in filing proceedings, if sufficient cause existed in favour of the party who sought condonation of delay, but said section, had not been made applicable on revision under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance can be placed on cases reported as Muhammad Inayat and 4 others v. Mst. Nisar Fatima PLD 1994 SC 120; Muhammad Inayat and others v. Fateh Muhammad and others PLD 2004 SC 778, Furqan Ahmad Khan v. Abdul Rehman and others 1997 SCM R 422, Allah Dino v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCM R 286. Rehana Kausar and others v. Faqir Muhammad 2004 CLC 1202 and Haji Ahmad v. Noor Muhammad 2004 SCM R 1630. This civil revision is time-barred by 14 days. In the light of the dictum laid down in above referred cases delay cannot be condoned.
6. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.