' YAHYA AFRIDI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge Mardan dated 19-5-2009 whereby the application of the present petitioner to produce the plaintiff as a witness after close of his evidence was rejected by the trial Court.
2. The brief and essential facts, which have led to the present petition are that the petitioner had instituted a suit for possession specific performance and in the alternative sought recovery of Rs.1.595 million. The evidence of the present petitioner was concluded and after the conclusion of the evidence, he had filed an application to produce himself as a witness. The said application was not positively considered by the trial Court vide the impugned order.
3. Feeling aggrieved on the order of the trial Court the present petitioner on 29-9-2009 moved the revisional jurisdiction of the District Judge. The said revision was finally returned by the District Court to the petitioner on 26-10-2009 for lacking the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said revision petition.
4. Accordingly, the present petitioner had moved the said revision petition before this Court on 31- 10-2009.
5. The valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the relevant record of the case perused.
6. The most essential issue which requires determination is "whether the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to revisions as provided under section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908.
' The provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 ("Act") clearly reveals that the said section only applied to suits and the same cannot be applied to revision petitions under section 115 of the C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Masood Ahmed v. United Bank Ltd. (1992 SCM R 424).
' This in no way to restrict the power of this court under its revisional jurisdiction to entertain matters even beyond the period of limitation, wherein it feels that the courts below had exercised furisdiction beyond its mandate and required interference.
' In the present case the impugned order of the trial Court in rejecting the application is neither perverse nor capricious. The trial Court has properly exercised its discretion. The same has to be respected.
' In view of the above this revision petition is dismissed.
' No order as to costs.