CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. --- This civil revision has been directed against order dated 22-2-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge Lahore which is prima facie barred by limitation. This Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to first' argue on the question of limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on 21-5-2010, he filed the instant civil revision against, the order dated 22-2-2010 within period of limitation. On 24-5-2010, the petitioner received the civil revision back from the office of this Court to remove objections and thereafter he again filed the civil revision on 18-6-2010. There is no delay on the part of the petitioners. The valuable rights of the petitioners are involved and it will be appreciated if the matter is decided on merit instead of technicalities. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the office never informed the petitioners about the objections having been raised on the case. He avers that in the circumstances, it shall be presumed that the civil revision was filed within the period of limitation and even if there is any delay, it be condoned on the grounds for condonation of delay mentioned in the attached application under section 5 of Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2000 SCM R 847, 2005 CLC 1083, PLD .2003 Lahore, 398, 2001 YLR 327 and 2001 'MLD 1964.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record reveals that the impugned order was passed on 22-2-2010, the petitioners applied for certified copies of the impugned order on 26-2-2010. The certified copy was prepared and was secured on 2-3-2010 and on 21-5-2010, learned counsel for the petitioners filed the instant civil revision within period of limitation.
5. On 24-5-2010, learned counsel for petitioners received back the civil revision to remove the objection. The office had directed the petitioners to remove the objections positively within three days but learned counsel for the petitioners failed to comply 'with the office orders and re-filed the civil revision in September, 2010.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the instant civil revision is within time is misconceived and is self-contradictory. The prayer of the petitioner made in C.M. No,3 of 2010, which is' petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay, is reproduced as under:-- "In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be accepted, delay in filing the civil revision/office objection may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice."
7. The stamp and certificate affixed by the copying agency speaks the truth and explains the question of limitation.
8. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not attracted in the instant case because the learned counsel for the petitioners himself collected the file of civil revision from the office. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner was obliged to comply with the direction of the office and to remove the objection within three days. The instant civil revision is barred by limitation. In this regard, I am fortified by the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble.
Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Asif Ali Shah v. Superintending Engineer. Quetta Circle, Quetta and others" reported as PLD 1963 SC 263.
9. Now the other important question involved in the matter is that whether the delay can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act.. The answer is again in negative because the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under section 115 of C.P.C. because where the law under which proceedings had been launched had itself prescribed a period of limitation as provided under section 115, C.P.C., then the benefit of section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be extended to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to offer any plausible reason for the condonation of delay. Respectful reliance is placed on 2001 SCM R 286 and 2006 SCM R 678.
10. The outcome of the above discussion is that the Civil Revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed in limine on the sole ground of limitation.