MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. --- This appeal, with leave of the Court, requires resolution of a proposition; whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the civil revision filed by the appellant shall be barred by limitation or not? In the context of the above the relevant facts are, that a civil revision petition was filed by the appellant before the learned High Court within the prescribed period of limitation, but the same was returned by the office of the Court, pointing out certain deficiencies (raising objections) and requiring the refiling of the petition after making up of the inadequacies within a specific period of time, however the re-filing could not be done within the time provided.
2. It may further be mentioned that, the appellant is a pre-emptor, whose suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and his appeal also could not succeed vide judgment 18.1.1993. The appellant assailed these (two) decisions by filing a civil revision petition before the learned High Court on 18.4.1993, which was within time. However, DRR (Civil) directed "returned with the objection at serial Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 21 and 23 above to be resubmitted after removal of these objections within limitation days, positively". The appellant could not remove the objections within the time provided to him, not only once, but more than one chances availed, and ultimately when the revision petition was re-filed by him complete and adequate in all respects, a period of 154 days (from the decision of the Appellate Court) had elapsed from the date of the decision challenges therein, In this situation, the office required the appellant to file an application for the condonation of delay, therefore he accordingly moved C.M. No. 1-C/1993. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned High Court, the noted C.M. Was taken up first and the learned Judge in Chambers while holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 are inapplicable to civil revision petition, filed under Section 115, CPC, dismissed the application and consequently the revision petition also met the same fate (dismissed), as being barred by time.
3. Despite service, the respondents are not present, therefore they are proceeded ex-parte, however in view of the importance of the issue involved, Mian Allah Nawaz, Sr. ASC and Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, ASC have been heard as amicus curiae.
4. Heard. Without going much into details, as to when and how the revisional empowerment was conferred upon the Courts in the Civil Procedure Code, but in order to attend to the proposition involved herein, I find it expedient to highlight the nature of this jurisdiction, which has been authoritatively spelt out in the cases reported as Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 139) and Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others (1991 SCM R 496). In the latter case, the apex Court after considering the legislative history of the revisional jurisdiction, expressed about the importance and nature thereof as follows:--- - "The power conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is exceptional but a necessary power intended to secure effective exercise of High Courts superintending and visitorial powers and correction of jurisdictional errors or material irregularities in proceedings of the subordinate Courts. Such a power should not be inhibited by technicalities of procedure or entirely by the conduct of the parties. Even the discretionary nature of the power does not justify introduction of such technicalities in its exercise. This Court has in the case of Karamat Hussain and others v.
Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 139) pointed out as hereunder:--- "True, the exercise of this jurisdiction by the High Court is discretionary but that does not mean that a revision is not a right but only a privilege. A privilege is some particular benefit or advantage conferred on a person or a class of persons which other citizens do not enjoy; while a right is some benefit conferred on a person by virtue of a given law. Here, the provisions of Section 115 of the C.P.C, confer on every person who has litigated before Court subordinate to the High Court the right to assert before the latter that the decision rendered by the subordinate Court against him is liable to correction under its revisional jurisdiction. Indeed where the conditions for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction are satisfied the High Court should itself interfere. Of course, it may in certain circumstances, in exercise of its judicial discretion, refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner such as where the petitioner has approached the Court, without reasonable cause, with undue delay or his conduct has been contumacious or because of the existence of some other special circumstances which disentitle him from relief. But the mere fact that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary does not mean that it is a privilege."
Adding slightly to the above-settled nature of the revisional jurisdiction, it is stated that over the period of time, with the liberal interpretation, of the expression 'case decided1 appearing in Section 115, CPC by the superior Courts, even certain interim orders have been subjected to the revisional jurisdiction; moreover such jurisdiction has also been conferred upon the District Court (subject to pecuniary limitation). The obvious purpose of the above seems to save the litigant public from the delays, which may occur awaiting for the challengers) to those orders, which fall, within the mischief and purview of Section 115, CPC, till the final decision of the case; rather it has enabled for an expeditious and convenient remedy in terms of time, the forum and also the procedure; the revisional remedy has been time bounded to ninety days as against no prescribed period of limitation earlier; subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction, authority has also been conferred upon the District Court to correct the error of the Courts subordinate to it, which is an addition towards the convenience of the forum, and the calling of the record has been dispensed with, as alongwith the impugned order/judgment requisite documents (mentioned in Section 115, CPC) have to be filed, which is a step in the direction of speedy disposal of the revisional matter(s) saving the summoning of the record and unnecessary and automatic stoppage of the proceeding before the Courts below. Thus, the procedure has been simplified. This all is also helpful in curtailing the possibility of frequent remand of the cases, as the orders etc. Are scrutinized and corrected at an early stage, thus saving and rescuing the. Litigant public from the menace of delays and inconvenience, In relation to the High Courts especially, this jurisdiction is aptly termed as the supervisory jurisdiction; a jurisdiction of superintendence of the High Court over the Court subordinate to it, which jurisdiction the High Court(s) should, necessarily possess and exercise in order to keep the litigants protected and secured against the errors noted in Section 115, CPC which are committed by the Courts subordinate (to it). This jurisdiction truly has the aim and object of dispensation of justice and in pursuit thereof, which (object) undoubtedly is the primary duty of the Courts. The High Court thus ordinarily should not feel shy and shun its duty to examine and look into the orders/judgments challenged before it merely in the revisional jurisdiction on account of technical flaws in the institution or proper documentation thereof; because any (emphasis supplied) deficiency, in the proper filing of the revision cannot be termed as insurmountable deficiency or the defect, which cannot be cured under the law, rather the litigants must be provided with sufficient and fair chance to remove such deficiencies with the exception, however the revision petition should accompany the certified copy of the decision(s) under challenge and should be filed within the prescribed period of limitation, In any case, a revision petition should not be dismissed which although has been brought in time, but suffers from a curable defect/deficiency, only for the reason that the defect has not been removed within the time given by the office and the period of limitation by that time has lapsed and/or when the refilling is done after the time provided by the office and by then the prescribed period of limitation has expired, the time should be reckoned from the date when the defect is cured.
5. The question herein involved thus needs to be resolved in the context of the above-stated object of the revisional jurisdiction and the principle(s) of law enunciated. However, before proceeding further in the matter it may be elucidated and reiterated that the limitation is not a question of mere technicality and if a revision petition, as initially filed, is beyond time, the law will take its own course. Be that as it may, in relation to the proposition in hand, reference can be made to Chapter- 1, Volume-V of the High Court Rules and Orders and Part-A. Rules 6 and 7 which prescribe certain requirements for the institution of a civil revision, and stipulates as below:-- "6. Particular ground to be specified In petition for revision.- A petition to the High Court to exercise the powers conferred by Section 115, Civil Procedure Code shall specify the particular ground on which the aid of the High Court is invoked:--
(a) If the ground be that the Court which decided the case 'exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, the petition shall set out clearly the particular exercise of jurisdiction complained of;
(b) if it be that the Court which decided the case failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, the jurisdiction which ought, in the petitioner's opinion, to have, and has not, been exercised shall be clearly set out;
(c) if it be that the Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity, the particular irregularity or irregularities complained of shall be similarly set out."
"7. (i) Documents to accompany such petitions. Every such petition shall be stamped as required by law and shall be accompanied by certified copies of the pleadings and the documents which are necessary to support the pleas taken and the relief sought in the petition unless the Court on sufficient cause shown orders otherwise as well as a copy of the decree or order in respect of which such application is made and by a copy of the judgment upon which such decree is founded.
(ii) Documents to accompany petition for revision of decree or order of Appellate Court, In the case of petition for revision of the decree or order of an Appellate Court, a certified copy of the judgment or order of the first instance shall also be filed.
(iii) Every such petition 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 petition within three months without calling for the record of the subordinate Court."
Rule 9 provides the power and authority of the officer to return the revision petition for the amendment in the following terms:--- "9. Power to return petition for amendment.
The Deputy Registrar is authorized to return for amendment, or making up the deficiency or filing the requisite documents within a time to be specified on the objection memo. Appendix I in an order to be recorded by him on the petition, any petition not drawn up in conformity with the foregoing direction."
According to Rule 9-A, however, it is provided:- "9-A. A list of petitions, appeals etc. Ordered to be returned shall be notified on the Notice Board and petitions, appeals, etc. Not received back within seven days of the publication of the list shall be placed before the Judge of the High Coup for order on a date to be notified by including such petition in a motion cause list, It is clarified that any delay in placing such petition before the Court or issuing the list shall not furnish any justification for non-receipt of the returned petition in time and non-compliance of the objection taken within time specified by Deputy Registrar (Judicial)."
From Rule 9 ibid, it is clear that the Deputy Registrar of the High Court is only authorized to return a revision petition for the amendment etc. Thereof; meaning thereby, if it is not inconsonance with Rule 6 or 7 (supra), he can return the petition for the making up of any deficiency and for re-filing.
This rule, however, does not empower the Deputy Registrar to refuse to entertain (note:- the expression understood in its legal sense) the petition or in other words to dismiss the petition as having not been validly instituted, In case, however, the deficiency is not corrected by the revision petitioner within the time given by the Deputy Registrar, the situation is fully catered by Rule 9-A supra, which postulates that if, within the time provided such petition is not re- filed/returned, a notice shall be affixed upon a notice board meant for that purpose and if within seven days thereafter, the deficiency is still not made good, the matter shall be placed before a Judge of the High Court for an order on a date to be notified bv fixing such a petition in the motion cause list (emphasis supplied), It is, thus, clearly mandated, that it is for the Court to decide as to what should be done with such a deficient petition, because the ministerial and administrative staff of the High Court cannot be empowered and allowed to decide about the fate of the revision petition (even deficient), which in fact is a complaint against the Court, subordinate to the High Court, to that Court, and not subordinate to DR; this is not permissible in the exercise of DR's ministerial/administrative function at all. In such an event, it is for the Court alone to take a decision as to what should be the fate of such a petition. And in the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court may have more than one options in this behalf, some are elucidated as (a) grant the delinquent party with a further chance within a specified period to meet the office objection and re-file the petition within that time (b) while recording reasons; to overrule the office objections and to consider the petition as it is, deeming it having been properly instituted and to hear it on merits the same day or some further day-fixed for hearing (c) by upholding the objection to dismiss the petition as having been invalidly filed or being not maintainable, or to dismiss the same for non-prosecution, depending upon the nature of the deficiency involved in a particular case; but the last option should be resorted to an acute matter, where the defect/deficiency is absolutely inherent and incurable. However, all these actions are within the exclusive authority of the High Court, which cannot and have not been delegated to the office and the office (DR) has no authority and the empowerment that of his own to declare a petition, which has been filed within prescribed period of limitation as time-barred, only because the office objection has not been met in time; the D.R. Also in such a situation cannot require the petitioner to file an application for the condonation of delay, It may be emphatically held that such a revision petition, which was filed within time prescribed by law, but was deficient in some respect, and such deficiencies were not supplied and made up in the given time, cannot be termed to be barred by time, It may be pertinent to mention here that where the revision petition is beyond limitation, the DR can point out to the petitioner this aspect and caution him but has to fix the matter before the Court for its decision on the question of limitation leaving it for the petitioner to seek the indulgence of the Court on the question of limitation or otherwise. Be that as it may, we may like to refer here a verdict of this Court which has nexus to the matter i.e. Mst. Sabiran Bi v. Ahmad Khan and another (2000 SCM R 847) holding that:- "Thus, in view of above discussions we are inclined to hold that once a suit, appeal or revision has been presented before the authorised officer of the Court within the prescribed period of limitation, it cannot be treated barred by time for the reason that the office has noted defects in the proceedings which have not been removed by the concerned party or his Advocate, and in such- like situation the Presiding Officer of the Court at the best can consider the maintainability of proceedings in view of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 or identical provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure or the law under which the proceedings were instituted, It is also important to note that parties/Advocates are also not absolved from their duty to remove the office objections within the stipulated period prescribed by the concerned authorised officer subject to the condition that specific notice has been served upon the party or Advocate to do the needful.
Even if after notice the defect is not removed the case shall be listed for non-prosecution before the Presiding Officer who may in his discretion allow time to comply with objections of office."
6. The upshot of the above discussion is, that where a revision petition has been filed within time, but the office objection(s) points out certain deficiencies in respect of the institution, for all intents and purposes, it shall be deemed to have been instituted within the period of limitation and where the petitioner does not remove the office objections and make up the deficiencies in the time provided by the office, the matter shall be placed before the Court on the judicial side and the Court shall decide about the fate of the petition in accordance with law, and as per some of the guideline provided in the preceding part of this judgment, In the instant case, an error has been committed at both the levels, i.e. The office, where an impression was caused that the revision petition of the appellant is rendered time-barred on account of the lapse of the period due to the failure on part of the appellant to make up the deficiencies in the time specified by the office and requiring the petitioner to file the application for the condonation of delay, and also at the stage of hearing when the learned High Court has not adverted to the fact of the case, the relevant law, quoted above, but has simply dismissed the petition as being time- barred due to the non- application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in the revision petitions. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot sustain which is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned High Court for the decision afresh on merits. Before parting we may acknowledge and appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus in enabling us to resolve a substantial proposition of law. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.