' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12- 7-2007 and 22-12-2006 passed by the learned Courts below whereby the objection petition and appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for respondents at the very outset has questioned the maintainability of the instant civil revision on the ground of limitation and submitted that the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 12-7-2007, the petitioner applied for certified copy on 13-7-2007 which was obtained by the petitioner on 14-7-2007 by the Copying Agency, District Courts, Faisalabad whereas the instant civil revision was filed on 6-11-2007 which is on the face of it is hopelessly barred by time. Reliance is placed on Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCMR 286), City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCMR 676), Dilbad Shah v. S. Rehmat Shah and others (PLD 2007 Peshawar 103), Messrs Nida-eMillat, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone-I, Lahore (2008 SCMR 284), Ilam Din v. Hassan Din and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 121), Pakistan Telecommunication Mobile Ltd. v. Furqaan Hayat Khan and others (2008 CLC 628), Abdul Qadir and 5 others v. Mst.
Samina Zafar Khan and 32 others (2008 YLR 550) and Said Muhammad v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others (2001 MLD 1546).
3. When confronted with the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel submitted that the delay occurred in filing the civil revision is not because of the fault of the petitioners, as the petitioners were not party before the learned Courts below and as and when the . Judgment came into their knowledge, the petitioners hurriedly filed the instant civil revision after obtaining the certified copy. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Bashir and another v. Province of Punjab through Collector of Distinct Gujrat and others (2003 SCMR 83).
4. Heard.
5. It is not denied that the instant civil revision was filed beyond the limitation stipulated in section 115(2), C.P.C. Wherein legislature has given 90 days to file the civil revision. I am fortified and guided by the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the judgment Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCMR 286). To resolve the controversy, the operative part of the aforesaid esteemed judgment is reproduced:-- ---Section 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), sections 5 and 29--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Revision--Provisions of section 5, Limitation Act, 1908---Applicability--Revision was dismissed by High Court as being time-barred and delay was not condoned---High Court refused to condone the delay for the reasons that the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. In view of the provisions of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908---Validity---Where the statute governing the proceedings did not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder would be controlled by Limitation Act, 1908, as a whole---Where the law under which proceedings had been launched had itself prescribed a period of limitation as under section 115, C.P.C. Then the benefits of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could not be availed unless the same had been made applicable as per section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908---No flaw in the judgment of High Court relating to interpretation of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 quasection 115(2), C.P.C. Having been found leave to appeal was refused.
6. In view of the admitted facts to the extent of filing the limitation after the stipulated period and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment supra, the civil revision is barred by time and is not maintainable in law.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed being barred by time. No order as to costs.