' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.---A suit filed by. Mst: Banori appellant pre-empting the sale of a piece of land was decreed by the trial Court through a judgment dated 30-9-2002. However; the appeal filed by the vendee was accepted by a learned Additional District Judge at Bannu as a consequence whereof the said suit filed by Mst. Banori was dismissed. The said pre-emptor then approached the Peshawar High Court through an application filed under section 115 of the C.P.C.
Seeking revision of the said appellate judgment dated 21-5-2004. The High Court through an order dated 14-4-2010 dismissed the said application (Revision Petition) as being time barred by denying her the benefits of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act.
2. This revisional order passed by D.I. Khan Bench of the Peshawar High Court was impugned before this Court through Civil Petition No,1209 of 2010 which petition was allowed through an order dated 15-7-2010 granting leave to Mst. Banori petitioner to consider whether the said benefits envisaged' by the said provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 were available to a party filing an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence this appeal.
3. The provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as originally enacted, read as under:-- "115. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears---
(a) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in case as it thinks fit."
' From these provisions, it transpires that this revisional power conferred on the High Court was essentially a supervisory power to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities and irregularities creeping into the decision of the courts subordinate to the High Courts. It would also be noticed that since this revisional power was meant to ensure dispensation of justice which was unpolluted by legal infirmities, therefore, the High Court was commanded to exercise control and superintendence over the courts subordinate to it unfettered by any technicalities e.g. Some aggrieved person approaching the court for the purpose or even by constraints of limitation of time.
4. As has been mentioned above, the power under section 115 of the C.P.C. Was basically a power exercisable suo motu. Therefore, no restriction whatsoever was placed on the sources from which the information regarding any error, illegality or irregularity of the kind mentioned in 5.115, C.P.C.
Could reach the High Court. Resultantly, nothing stopped even the parties to a lis from laying any such information before the High Court and this is then what permitted even private persons from filing applications in the High Court's which gradually came to be known a REVISION PETITIONS. And since no limitation of time regulated the said matter, therefore, such a revision petition could, in theory, be filed even after months and years of a decision taken by a subordinate court. The record of the proceedings in question would then be called by the High Court and, not infrequently, when such revision petitions were filed with respect to decisions relating to interlocutory matters, the proceedings in the main suit also got stayed on account of summoning of record resulting in inordinate though avoidable delays in dispensation of justice.
5. It was to eliminate such-like delays that through the Ordinance No,X of 1980, a proviso was added to provisions of section 115 of the C.P.C. Which provisions had been, through the Law Reforms Ordinance No,XII of 1972 re-numbered as subsection (1) because three other subsections were also added to the said section 115, C.P.C. Which subsections are however, not relevant for the purposes of the present case. The said proviso which then became the proviso to subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. Provided that where information laid before the High Court leading to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction arose out of an application filed by some person, then such person would be bound to furnish copies of the pleadings, of the documents and the order of the subordinate court along with such an application and further that the High Court would then decide the fate of such an application without calling for the record of the concerned subordinate court.
6. No limitation of time was, however, prescribed even through the said proviso added in the year 1980 within which such an application could be filed in the High Court.
7. A further effort was made in the year 1992 to avoid delays in the decision of civil cases and it was through Act VI of 1992 that a further proviso was added which finally prescribed that any such application filed by a person seeking revision of some decision would have to be filed in the High Court within 90 days. Of the making of the decision sought to be revised and through a further amendment introduced by Act XIV of 1994 it was further provided in the said second proviso that the concerned subordinate court would provide a copy of the decision sought to be revised within 3 days of the passing of the same and finally that the High Court would finally decide such an application within 6 months of the making thereof.
8. The above noticed provisions of subsection (1) of section 115 as they stand now after the above- noted amendments, read as under:-- "115. Revision.--(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears---
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: ' Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court: ' Provided further that such application shall be made within 90 days of the decision of subordinate Court which shall provide copy of such decision within three days thereof and High Court shall dispose such application within six months."
A perusal of the said provisions would reveal as under:--
(a) that the jurisdiction conferred by section 115, C.P.C. Is essentially a supervisory jurisdiction of superintendence and control meant to ensure correction of illegalities and irregularities found in the decisions of the courts subordinate to the revisional court;
(b) that in the discharge of its said obligation, the revisional court had not been placed at the mercy of the parties to a lis or of some other person and was required to act even suo motu;
(c) that no law prescribed any limit of time for such a court within which such an error could be rectified;
(d) that there was, however, no bar on any person, laying, through an application any information before the revisional court about any such error, illegality or irregularity in any of the decisions of the subordinate courts and seeking correction thereof;
(e) that a person making such an application had, however, been bound to do so within ninety days of the decision sought to be revised;
(f) that such a person was required to furnish, along with the said application, copies of the pleadings and other documents and of course a copy of the order being questioned;
(g) that the subordinate court making the decision which is sought to be revised, was bound to supply a copy thereof within three days of the making of the same;
(h) that the revisional court was then required to dispose such an application within six months and that also, except in exceptional cases, without calling for the record.
9. These provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Thus appear to be a complete code vis-a-vis the invoking and exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Confining ourselves to the facts of the present case i,e, to the matter of applications seeking exercise of revisional power, suffice it to say that the said provisions prescribe the form of application to be filed; the documents required to be furnished with such an application; the period of time within which such an application could be made; the obligation of the court making the decision in question to supply a copy thereof; the period of time within which such a copy was to be supplied; such an application to be decided without calling for the record of the subordinate court except in exceptional situations and finally the period of time within which such an application was to be disposed.
10. The provisions of section 115, C.P.C., after the addition of the two provisions, give us a complete scheme including the time limits prescribed for various steps in the matter of applications which could be filed invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the question whether the provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 were or were not attracted in the case of such applications, was not relevant. While we are on the subject, we may state here that we could not persuade ourselves to approve some of the observations of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court made in the case of Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Iqbal Lodhi 2003 CLC 1539 vis-a-vis the obligations of the subordinate courts to provide copies of the relevant decisions within three days. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-- "16. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the limitation of 90 days would only start running if a copy of such decision is supplied by the subordinate Court within 3 days, is not of much substance because this direction and the further direction in the same proviso for disposal of such application by High Court within 3 months, appears to be of regulatory nature.
It is also to be seen that there can be many orders passed by the trial Court, which may fall within the category of "decision" or "case decided". It is not necessary for the trial Court to provide copy of each such order to the aggrieved party. At the same time, it is also not necessary that every such order would necessarily be challenged under section 115, C.P.C. Thus, the period of 90 days' limitation cannot be attached with this condition of supply of copy within 3 days."
11. As has been noticed above, the first proviso to section 115, C.P.C. Was added through an amendment made in the year 1980. The second proviso was inserted in the year 1992 and the portion in question casting an obligation on the subordinate court to provide a copy of the decision in question within three days was added through an amendment in the year 1994. This command was thus a conscious and a considered insertion in the said provision and brushing the same aside as an unwanted surplusage and in fact annulling and rendering the same as futile and nugatory, was, to say the least, doing offence to the said legal provision. The duty of the courts of law, inter alia, was to give effect to K the legal provisions and not to make them ineffective. The impression that the said was a useless and an unworkable provision was also not correct. It is true that a subordinate court may be passing tens of orders qualifying as revisable decisions every day involving tens of parties but then the impression that every such court was required to arrange copies of every such decision or case decided and then to run after all the parties to provide them with the same irrespective of the fact whether such a party did or did not want to seek revision thereof, was misplaced. A bare reading of the said two provisos would demonstrate that it would be a person aggrieved of such a decision who would make an application questioning the same and it would thus only be such a person who would be entitled to be supplied with a copy thereof within the said prescribed time.
12. A conscious imposition of such a burden on a subordinate court would be further evident from another circumstances available in law. A perusal of the provisions of rule 20 of Order XX of the C.P.C. Would demonstrate that the one drafting the said obligation and the one introducing the same in the said second proviso knew that under the scheme envisaged by the C.P.C., any one desirous of obtaining a copy of a judgment was required to make an application for the purpose and it was then that the same was supplied to him at his expense. And that the court being obliged to supply a copy of a judgment to a party was a concept of the Criminal Procedure Code which was alien to the C.P.C. Reference may be made to the provisions of section 371, Cr.P.C. Importing a concept foreign to the C.P.C. And adding the same to it, could not have been without a purpose nor could the same have been an un-considered act on the part of the law-maker. The same, therefore, deserves the respect which would be due to it.
13. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter and having also considered a judgment delivered by a learned two Member Bench of this Court in the case of Province of Punjab v.
Muhammad Farooq PLD 2010 SC 582, we hold as under:--
(a) that any person seeking revision of a decision made by a subordinate court could do so through an application to be filed by him for the purpose;
(b) that such an application was required to be accompanied by the copies of the pleadings, other documents and by a copy of the order sought to be revised;
(c) that such an application was to be filed within ninety days of the decision in question;
(d) that ii was the obligation of the concerned subordinate court to provide a copy of such a decision to such a person within three days of the making of the said decision;
(e) that since no one could be allowed to suffer on account of an act of a court, therefore, the time taken by the concerned court in providing such a copy to such a person after being informed for the purpose would be excluded from the staid period of ninety days; (0 that the revisional court was expected not to call for the record of the subordinate court for the disposal of the matter except in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing;
(g) that the revisional court was then required to dispose the matter within six months; and finally
(h) the requisite respect was required to be shown to the said legal obligations and effect was required to be given to them.
14. Reverting now to the facts and merits of this appeal, we find that while dismissing the appellant's application (Revision Petition) being barred by time, the High Court took no step to find out whether the legal command contained in the above-mentioned second proviso regarding supply of a copy of the decision in question within three days, had been complied with and if so, when was the said copy provided to the appellant. What also appears not to have been examined and considered by the High Court was that if the copy in question had not been supplied to the revision petitioner within the said prescribed time, then what was to be the effect thereof.
15. Resultantly, we allow this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment dated 14-4-2010 passed in Civil Revision No,249 of 2004 and remand the matter back to the High Court where the said Revision Petition would be deemed to be pending which shall then be decided afresh in accordance with the principles and the law laid down hereinabove. No order as to costs.
16. But before we part with this judgment, we consider it necessary to reiterate that the courts of law can never be a party to putting legal provisions to disuse or to discard the same. It is one of the obligations of P every court to give effect to each and every provision of each and every law.
Needless to add that the provisions of the two provisos added to section 115, C.P.C., were extraordinary provisions incorporated to eliminate or at least to minimize delays in dispensation of justice. It was to avoid delays caused in the process of obtaining copies of decisions that the courts were asked to provide such copies within three days. Summoning and retention of subordinate courts' record by the revisional courts was another factor contributing towards such delays. As a cure, the applicants were ordered to furnish copies of the requisite record along with the applications submitted by them and the courts were asked to decide these applications without calling for the subordinate courts' records unless that availability of such record with the revisional court was indispensable on account of reasons to be recorded in writing. Fixing of outer limit of time for filing of applications invoking revisional jurisdiction and also fixing of time for final disposal of these applications, were also wrung of the same ladder.
17. To show the required respect to these provisions by following them in letter and spirit, we direct that copies of this judgment shall be sent to the Registrars of all the High Court's who would place the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justices of the High Courts and also circulate them to all the learned Judges of the subordinate courts within their respective jurisdictions so that it is ensured:
(a) that steps are. Taken, in accordance with law, to order the applicants under section 115, C.P.C.
To supply copies of the pleadings and documents where these pending applications were not accompanied by the same;
(b) that steps are then taken again in accordance with law, to return the records to the subordinate courts where the same had been summoned otherwise than through specific orders passed by the revisional courts or where the same had been requisitioned not for indispensable reasons recorded in writing by the revisional courts;
(c) that in future, no applications filed under section 115, C.P.C. Are entertained unless accompanied by copies of the commanded documents and record;
(d) that every subordinate court provides a copy of the decision sought to be revised to the person who so seeks, within the prescribed three days; and finally
(e) that the revisional courts decide such-like applications within six months and do so without calling the subordinate court record unless it was indispensable to summon such a record.