The petitioner being dissatisfied by the verdict passed by _Additional District Judge, Bannu dated 01.10.2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal brought against the judgment passed by Civil Judge, Bannu dated 16.4.2005 and have assailed both, the impugned judgment 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 vs. Sued Mir Azam Shah etc. decided by apex Court in SPLAs 540 & 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 sub-section (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 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 they yardstick which reveals that decision by the Appellate Court was made on 01.10.2005, application for obtaining copies was moved on 15.11.2005 and the copies of judgment and other documents were delivered to the petitioners on the same date i.e. 15.11.2005 wheres the revision petition was brought in this Court on 06.01.2006 which clearly suggests that the revision petition was within ninety days, however, objection was raised on 06.10.2006 and the same was returned to the counsel for petitioners but even he slept over its filing till 21.01.2006 and wasted further 15 days without any valid reason and ground and as such the delay of six clays on the part of petitioner for filing the revision petition has neither been explained nor there is any application for condonation of the exhausted period of limitation. Reference can be made to PLD 2006 Peshawar 157 whereas it is held that time prescribed in a statute in terms of days and not in months, legislature, intended its strict compliance.
7. In view of the afore-mentioned observations, I have been led to the conclusion that the prescribed period of filing the revision has expired on 30.12.2005 or at the most on 02.01.2006 and as such delay on the part of petitioners is deliberate, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed being barred by time. Reliance is placed on PLJ 2008 Pesh. 230.