MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---The petitioners being dissatisfied by the verdict passed by Additional District Judge, Bannu dated 1-10-2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal brought against the judgment A passed by Civil Judge, Bannu, dated 16-4-2005 and have assailed both the impugned judgments through the instant civil revision under section 115, C ,P.C.
2. At the start of arguments, counsel for the respondents raised objection that the revision petition filed by the petitioners through their counsel is badly time barred in view of repeated authorities of this Court regarding non-application of section 12(2) of Limitation act to such like revision petitions brought under section 115 C.P.C.
3. While arguing the case before me, it was alleged by the counsel for petitioner that the general provisions of section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 are applicable to revision in hand and made reference to a titled case Sardar Malik Jan v. Sued Mir Azam Shah etc. Decided by apex Court in SPLAs 540 and 541 of 2007 where it is held that we do not feel persuaded to agree with the view of the High Court that provisions of section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 could not be attracted in the case of revision petitions under section 115 C.P.C., meaning thereby that section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to revision petitions under section 115, C.P.C. In respect of computation of the period of limitation for filing revision petition before the High Court.
4. In order to understand the actual controversy between the parties regarding the technical issue of limitation, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the said provision below:--- "In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed shall be excluded."
5. In view of second proviso to clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 115 C.P.C., the substantive law has clearly provided that the application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof, and :hat the High Court shall dispose of such application within three months.
6. So, computing the time period of limitation for filing revision petition in this Court, I will make criteria of Copying Branch the yardstick which reveals that decision by the appellate Court was made on 1-10-2005, application for obtaining copies was moved on 15-11-2005 and the copies of judgment and other documents were delivered tot the petitioners on the same date i.e. 15-11-2005 whereas the revision petition was brought in this Cour 6-1-2006 which clearly suggests that revision petition was within nine days, however, objection was raised 6-1-2006 and the same was returned tc counsel for petitioners but even he over its filing till 21-1-2006 and was further 15 days without any valid re: and ground and as such the delay of days on the part of petitioner for filing revision petition has neither 1 explained nor there is any application condonation of the exhausted period limitation. Reference can be made to 2006 Pesh. 157 where it is held that prescribed in a statute in terms of and not in months, legislature intended strict compliance.
7. In view of the afore mend( observations, I have been led to conclusion that the prescribed pe of filing the revision has expired 30-12-2005 or at the most on 2-1-2006 and as such delay on the part petitioners is deliberate, hence, petition is hereby dismissed being barred by time. Reliance is placed on 2008 YLR 1553.