' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.-- Through this revision, petition under section 115, C.P.C, the petitioners assailed the judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge-V, Bannu dated 17/10/2005 and of learned Additional District Judge-V, Bannu dated 19/10/2006 vide which the former partially decreed the suit of petitioners, while the later maintained the judgment and decree of the trial court.
2. Succinct but necessary facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner Mst.
Khanzada wife of Khan Wali and Mst. Shah Zarina wife of Rab Nawaz, (hereinafter called petitioners) filed a suit bearing No, 22/1 of 2004 against Khan Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, (hereinafter called respondent-1) for declaration to the effect that petitioners purchased the suit property, detail mentioned in the head note of the plaint, @ Rs,13,100 per kanal.
That being, received the total sale consideration, delivered the possession of suit property measuring 70 kanals to the plaintiffs by the defendants and entered Mutation No, 2253 by halqa patwari, which is still "zair-ekaar", the respondents are reluctant to get attested the mutation and transfer the said property. Prior to this suit another suit by Haji Gul Aadat Khan son of Gulla Khan, (hereinafter referred as respondent-2) also filed a suit bearing No, 54/1 of 2001, against respondent-1, over the same property.
3. On appearance of the parties, as the suit property was almost the same in both the suits, therefore, the learned trial court consolidated both the suits, as suit bearing No, 54/1 was instituted first hence proceedings were conducted in that suit. The parties hotly contested the suits and submitted their written statements. On divergent pleadings, the learned trial court framed consolidated fifteen issues apart from the relief.
4. The learned trial court required the parties to produce their evidence as they wished, on conclusion of trial, after hearing the parties and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial court partially decreed the Suit No, 22/1 of the petitioners while the suit 54/1 of respondent-2/rival plaintiff was dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 17-10-2005.
5. Aggrieved from the said consolidated judgment and decree of the trial court, three separate appeals were preferred by the parties before District Appeal Court, in the following details:--
(i) Haji Gul Aadat Khan v. Khan Muhammad Khan and others (Civil Appeal No, 72/13 of 2005).
(ii) Mst. Khanzada etc. v. Khan Muhammad Khan and others (Civil Appeal No, 74/13 of 2005).
(iii) Khan Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Khanzada etc. (Civil Appeal No, 75/2013 of 2005).
' All the three appeals were consolidated and after hearing the parties. The learned appellate court maintained the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed all the three appeals vide its consolidated judgment and decree dated 19-10-2006.
6.. Dissatisfied from the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the subordinate courts, all the above parties filed their separate revision petitions respectively in the following detail:--
(i) Haji Gul Aadat Khan v. Khan Muhammad and others (C.R. No, 5-B of 2007), filed on. 17-1-2007.
(ii) Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Khanzada and others (C.R. No,8-B of 2007), filed on 17-1-2007
(iii) Mst. Khanzada and others v. Khan Muhammad and others (C.R. No, 17-B of 2007), filed on 20-3- 2007.
' Out of above, the C.R. No, 8-B of 2007 filed by the Khan Muhammad Khan was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order of this Court dated 5-11-2013, whereas C.R. No, 5-B filed by Haji Gul Aadat Khan is within time, therefore, is deciding separately on merits.
7. During the arguments, at the very outset Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, the learned counsel for the respondent-2 pointed out that the instant revision petition was filed beyond the ninety days and raised the preliminary objection that present revision petition is hopelessly time barred. So prior to discuss the merits of the case, this question of limitation should be decided first.
8. On the other side Mr. Riaz Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the version/ objection of the learned counsel for the respondents and tried to manage the support of section 12(2) of The Limitation Act, 1908 (herein after called Limitation Act) and contended that the revision petition was filed within time of ninety days after computing the period of supply of copies of documents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned judgment of Appellate Court was passed on 17-10-2006. The application was filed for supply of the copies on 21- 10-2006 just after four days and copies were delivered to the petitioners on 24-1-2007, while the revision petition was filed on 20-3-2007, hence, the revision petition is well within time after excluding the time provided in the subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently stressed that the said late delivery of copy of the judgment is not a fault on the part of the petitioners but it is the copying branch who delivered the same late.
So petitioners could not be penalized for the act of copying section.
9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and they have taken me through the entire record.
10. Admittedly the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court was passed on 17-10-2006, while the instant revision petition was filed on 20-3-2007 after lapse of a period of 152 days.
11. Perusal of other connected revision A petition bearing No, C.R. 5-B/2007, filed by Haji Gul Aadat Khan, attested copy of the impugned judgment and decree transpires that the document attached with that revision petition are delivered to Gul Aadat Khan the rival petitioner, both the petitioners applied for supply of copies on the same date, i,e, 21-10-2006, but Haji Aadat Khan got the same on 6-11-2006. It manifest that the said copies were prepared and ready for delivery before 6-11-2006, but the petitioners got instant copies on 24-1-2007. Hence, it is held that the petitioner had filed instant revision petition beyond the period of limitation which shows the negligence on the part of present petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on deciding the similar nature case titled "City District Govt. Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCM R 676) wherein it has been held that:- "It may be noted that on legal plan, he admits that in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286, section 5 of the Limitation Act, has not been made applicable on the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the caveat, we have calculated the period/time spent by the petitioner in filing the revision petition. In this behalf it may be noted that the Additional District Judge pronounced the judgment on 10th June, 2002, and application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment was filed on 17th June, 2002, which was ready and delivered on 19th July, 2002 and in this manner it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed revision petition on or before 13th October, 2002, but admittedly it was filed on 21st October, 2002 beyond the period of limitation, therefore, in our opinion the learned High Court has rightly non-suited the petitioner."
12. The Superior Courts of Pakistan are not in agreement as to allow period spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment in filing revision petitions under section 115 of the C.P.C., as the period of limitation for filing revision has also been prescribed in section 115 of C.P.C. Itself which is special enactment. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act envisages that the period of limitation if differently provided by any special/local law or enactment, the provisions contained in sections 4, 9, 18 and 22 of the Limitation Act would apply and remaining provisions of the said Act would not be applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Allah Dino and others v.
Muhammad Shah" reported in 2001 SCM R 286, it has been held:-- "We have given our anxious thoughts to the proposition under examination. There is no cavil with the arguments that if the statute governing the proceedings does not prescribe period of limitation, the proceeding instituted thereunder shall be controlled by the Limitation Act as a whole. But where the law under which proceedings have , been launched prescribed itself a period of limitation like under section 115 of C.P.C, then benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be availed unless it has been made application as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act as held in the cases (i) The Canara Bank Ltd: v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1935 Bombay 35), (ii) Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst Mumtaz (PLD 1982 SC 572), (iii) All Muhammad and others v. Fazal Hussain and others (1983 SCMR 1239), (iv) Collector of Customs fAppraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi (PLD 1999 Karachi 76) and (v) Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others (1999 MLD 330)".
' This view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the City District Government's case (supra).
13. This view was further fortified by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case titled "Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Sarwar" reported in 2014 SCM R 1358, on dilating the ratio settled by the Superior Courts, it has been held:-- "When the revisional jurisdiction is invoked by an aggrieved party, it is subject to the statutory provision now incorporated in section 115 of C.P.C., the second provision thereto in un- ambiguous terms lays down the period of limitation for applying to the court by mentioning that 'provided that such application shall be made within ninety days'. Like all other statutory provisions prescribed time period in which the matter is to be brought before the court, the second provision to section 115(1) of C.P.C. To be applied with the same vigor. Thus where an aggrieved parties seeks redress against the judgment or order through the revisional powers under section 115 of C.P.C. He has ninety days to make the application, failing which the application is liable to be dismissed".
14. For what has been discussed above and dicta settled by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, this revision petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. I have no hesitation in holding that the revision petition has been filed beyond the prescribe period of limitation, hence, not maintainable.
15. Even on merits too the impugned judgments and decrees of the two learned courts below are based on concurrent finding, which have been recorded after proper appraisal of entire evidence on record and after attending to all legal issues raised before it, thus the same cannot be lightly disturbed in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard reference can be made to case titled "Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Saddique" (PLD 2002 SC 293) and " Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2010 SCM R 5).
16. In view of the above, this revision petition being barred by time is dismissed, as no order to cost.