' This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the respondent, Muhammad Sadiq, to challenge the order of his removal from service. He was employed with the Pakistan Railways as a Store Keeper when the above order was passed. His suit was decreed by a Civil Judge. Appeal preferred against his judgment and decree was also dismissed by an Additional District Judge.
Hence this civil revision by the Federation of Pakistan.
2. In response to pre-admission notice issued to the respondent, his learned counsel entered appearance before this Court and raised preliminary objection to the effect that the civil revision suffered from the defect of laches and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground. It was pointed out by him that the impugned judgment and decree were passed on 4th February, 1986 and that an incomplete revision was filed on 7th May, 1986. It was returned with objections on 17th May, 1986 and was directed to be refiled within three days. The petitioner, however, received back the revision petition on 2nd August, 1986 and re-filed it on 23rd October, 1986. Thus, according to him, the petitioner took about 8 months to file the revision. When the above objection was raised on 15th February, 1987 learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to explain the delay. His request was acceded to and on 18th February, 1987 he submitted written explanation in this regard.
3. It was explained by the petitioner that the revision was filed on 7th May, 1987 accompanying the following documents:- "(i) Impugned judgment/decree of Additional District Judge, dated 4-2-1986.
(ii) Grounds of appeal, dated 21-3-1983.
(iii) Judgment/decree of the Civil Judge, dated 27-6-1982.
(iv) Copy of the plaint, dated 29-9-1970.
(v) Copy of written statement, dated 7-7-1971.
(vi) Application for stay, dated 7-5-1986.
(vii) Affidavit, dated 7-5-1986.
' The documents mentioned at (i) and (ii) above were certified copies whereas the rest of the documents were attested by learned counsel for the petitioner. On 19th May, 1986, a memo containing following objections was issued by the office:-
(9) Properly attested full affidavit, supporting the application for stay to be filed.
(17) A certificate that no appeal/revision in the matter was filed earlier appended be signed.
(21) Documents are required by amendment in section 115, C.P.C. Have not been filed.
(25) Uncertified copies of pages 17 to 41 be replaced with certified copies."
(At pages 17 to 41 were uncertified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, uncertified copies of plaint and written statement and uncertified copy of the list of documents relied upon by the defendant). The revision was re-filed 'after making compliance' whereupon the following note was recorded by the office on 4th June, 1986:- "Please remove the objections."
' However, on the same day, that is, on 4th June, 1986, the Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) directed that the case be put up as an objection case. The case was received by the clerk of learned counsel for petitioner on 2nd August, 1986 after the same was included in the list issued on 30th July, 1987. On 23rd October, 1987, an application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 4856/C of 1986) was made 'for dispensing with the filing of the certified copies' on the ground that the 'file of the civil suit was not available in the record of the lower Court and as such certified copies could not be obtained.
Application form for certified copies, in original, dated the 8th September, 1986, as returned, was also filed'. Thereupon, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) directed that the case be put up as an objection case as already ordered by the Officer on Special Duty (Judicial). Objection case was fixed before my learned brother A.S. Salam, J. On 1st November, 1986 when it was observed that the 'application for dispensing has been filed'. The case was adjourned to the next date for hearing in motion at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. On 2nd November, 1986, the case was fixed before my learned brother Akhtar Hasan, J. Who declined to hear it. It was then fixed before me for 4th November, 1986.
4. On 4th November, 1986, when Civil Miscellaneous No. 4856/C of 1986, for dispensing with the requirement of filing of certified copies was placed before me, I allowed the petitioner to file these copies before 8th December, 1986, subject to all just and legal exceptions, and disposed of the civil miscellaneous accordingly.
5. Besides raising the preliminary objection referred to above, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent on 21st February, 1987 that a properly constituted revision had not been filed by that date inasmuch as certified copies of exhibited documents, which were as many as 17 in number, had not been filed nor any petition had been made for dispensing with the requirement in this behalf. It was therefore, maintained by him that the revision petition merited dismissal. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for adjournment which was allowed and the case was ordered to be relisted for 3rd March, 1987. Before this date, that is, on 1st March, 1987, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted Civil Miscellaneous No. 1081/C of 1987 for permission to file certified copies of the exhibited documents. That petition was opposed by the respondent by filing a reply. In his reply, it was stated by the respondent that the mere 'filing of revision petition without necessary documents is no institution in the eye of law' and the civil revision will be 'deemed to be competently filed only when necessary documents duly certified are submitted'. According to him, there was 'gross negligence and striking carelessness' on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the documents filed by him alongwith the civil miscellaneous on 1st March, 1987 were applied for as late as on 21st Februry, 1987. They were supplied to him on 24th February, 1987. No step in this regard was taken by the petitioner from 4th February, 1986, when the appeal was decided, till 21st February, 1987, when application for supply of copies was made. It was pleaded by the respondent that the 'revisional jurisdiction is not exercisable in case where the petitioner displayed negligence, contumacy or carelessness in pursuing this remedy'. It was also added by him that the 'gross negligence disentitled the petitioner to remove the legal defect of non-filing of these documents in time'. His contention was that the civil revision shall be 'deemed to be not properly constituted' till 1st March, 1987' when 'these documents were filed and merits to be rejected on this objection'.
6. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing of a civil revision. As for delay pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the re-filing of the civil revision, etc., it was submitted by him that the petitioner had furnished plausible explanation therefor. In regard to the failure of the petitioner to file certified copies of the exhibited documents, his plea was that they were not needed for deciding the civil revision because the main attack of the petitioner against the impugned judgment and decree was that the respondent was a civil servant and, therefore, his suit had abated under clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution.
7. On the other hand, it was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the plea of abatement was not raised by the petitioner before either of the two Courts below. It was maintained by him that the respondent was deprived of the job as far back as in 1969 and when he succeeded in getting the desired relief from the two Courts below the petitioner thought of raising the above plea. In regard to delay in filing of proper civil revision, his argument was that no cogent explanation had been furnished therefor. As for the petitioner's prayer for permission to file copies of the exhibited documents, his contention was that it was a belated attempt on the part of the petitioner to save his civil revision from dismissal. According to him, the petitioner was guilty of culpable negligence and contumacy and was, therefore, not entitled to any indulgence. Conceding that no limitation has been prescribed for filing of civil revision it was submitted by him that the doctrine of lathes is very much applicable to a civil revision and if it is filed after 90 days without giving proper explanation for delay it deserves to be dismissed. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on Manager, Jummu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678. It was also urged by learned counsel for the respondent that due to failure of the petitioner to file copies of the exhibited documents there was no properly constituted civil revision before this Court even after the lapse of more than a year, and, therefore, it merited dismissal.
8. A careful perusal of the record would reveal that the civil revision was filed on 7th May, 1986, under Diary No. 1105, as an ordinary case. On 17th May, 1986, the office raised objections Nos. 9, 17, 21 and 25, reproduced earlier in paragraph 3, while dealing with the explanation of the petitioner. The objections were required to be removed within three days. Office note in this regard was approved of by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 19th May, 1986. The civil revision was re-filed on 29th May, 1986, vide Diary No. 1293. On 4th June, 1986 (which date was wrongly indicated by the office as 6/4), it was pointed out by the office that the objections Nos. 21 and 25 had not been removed. The petitioner was again required to remove them within three days. On the same day, the Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) directed that the case be put up as an objection case. Since it was an ordinary case, it was mentioned in the list of the objection cases issued on 30th July, 1986. The above list is attached to the said explanation of the petitioner. Entries in respect of this civil revision are at Serial No. 65 of the list. The case was, however, not noted by learned counsel for the petitioner as it was decided by the petitioner to get it back for removal of objections. Accordingly, the case was not fixed before the Court. The case was received back by the petitioner on 2nd August, 1986 and re-filed on 23rd October, 1986, under Diary No. 3211, without removing the objections. It was, therefore, directed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on 26th October, 1986 that the case be put up as an objections case. The case was then noted by the clerk of learned counsel for the petitioner on 27th October, 1986 for 1st November, 1986. In the meantime, on 23rd October, 1986, the petitioner had filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 4856/C of 1986 for dispensing with the requirement of filing certain certified copies. On 1st November, 1986, the case came up before my learned brother A.S. Salam, J. When it was adjourned by him at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. Then, it was placed before me on 4th November, 1986 when I disposed of the above civil miscellaneous as aforesaid.
9. Now, even if short delays on the part of the petitioner are ignored it is not possible to overlook more than two months delay following 2nd August, 1986, when the civil revision was received back by the petitioner and ending on 23rd October, 1986, when the civil revision was re-filed. Obviously, the revision was received back by the petitioner on 2nd August, 1986 to remove the objections.
Strangely enough, it was re-filed on 23rd October, 1986, without removing the objections. If the petitioner was unable to remove the objections, it should have instead of receiving back the case on 2nd August, 1986, noted the case and let the office fix it before the Court as an objection case.
Needless to say that on the fixation of the case before the Court, the petitioner could have moved an application for dispensing with the requirement of filing certified copies as eventually done by him on 23rd October, 1986. Application submitted by the petitioner for supply of certified copies, referred to in Civil Miscellaneous No. 4856/C of 1986, has been annexed to the said civil miscellaneous. It reveals that the application was made on 8th September, 1986 before the Copying Agency of the District Courts and returned to the petitioner on 9th October, 1986 with the remarks that copies be obtained from the Court of Sessions. No explanation is forthcoming as to why after getting back the case on 2nd August, 1986, application for supply of copies was not made during the period from 3rd August to 7th September, 1986 and why it was not straightaway taken to the record room of the Court of Session from where he got other copies earlier on 19th February, 1986. This is evident from letter No. 223-J, dated the 12th November, 1986, received from the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore.'No reason whatsoever has been given for petitioner's failure to get on 19th February, 1986, the copies for which application was subsequently made A on 8th September, 1986. In short there is no cogent explanation for the said delay of more than two months.
10. This brings me to second objection of the respondent which is in regard to proper constitution of the revision petition. According to subsection (2) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was obligatory for the petitioner to file certain copies including copies of the documents. It is not disputed that there were as many as 17 B documents which were produced before, and exhibited by, the learned trial Court. Copies of these documents were, however, not filed by the petitioner for more than a year after the dismissal of the appeal. It was on 1st March, 1987 that permission to place them on the record was sought by the petitioner, after an objection in this behalf was raised by learned counsel for the respondent on 21st February, 1987, while contending that the revision was not properly constituted. Application for supply of copies of the said documents was also not made till the above objection was presented. .This is clear from endorsement at the back of the copies. That application was submitted on 21st February, 1987 and copies were supplied on 24th February, 1987. No petition for dispensing with the requirement of the filing of copies of the above documents was made by the petitioner although a petition, namely Civil Miscellaneous No.4858/C of 1986 for dispensing with the requirment of filing some other copies was made by it on 23rd October, 1988. Civil Miscellaneous No.4858/C of 1988 was in regard to certified copies of judgment and decree of the trial Court and copies of pleadings which find mention in application for supply of those copies. As stated above, the said application is annexed to Civil Miscellaneous No.4856/C of 1986. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner remained C indifferent to requirement in regard to filing of copies of the documents in question till an objection in this respect was advanced.
11. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that copies of the documents were not filed because they were not required for deciding the question of abatement of suit, under clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution, is not acceptable because it has not been laid down in subsection
(2) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure that copies of such documents only shall be placed on the record as are relevant to questions agitated in the revision petition. It can also be easily gathered from the revision petition that the petitioner challenged the impugned judgment and decree on merits without raising the plea of abatement of suit. What was said by the petitioner in ground (a) of the revision petition makes the following reading:-
(a) That the respondent was proceeded against under the provisions of Railway Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules. As such, the civil suit was not at all maintainable. It is respectfully submitted that the learned lower Courts have acted in excess of their jurisdiction in granting the decree. The impugned judgment is thus liable to be set aside."
' Assuming, without conceding, that in the said ground is incorporated the plea of abatement, this is not the only ground pressed by the petitioner. As already, said, the petitioner assailed judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court on merits as well. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to offer the above explanation for non-filing of copies of the exhibited documents. It seems that the petitioner did not care to comply with the requirement in this regard despite the repeated directions of the office to remove objection No.21, which reads as under:- "21. Documents as required by section 115, C.P.C. Have not been filed."
' It was only when it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the civil revision was not properly constituted, for want of copies of the said documents, that he thought of getting the same and seeking permission to place them on the record. Since no good explanation has been given for more than one year's delay in filing the said copies I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to now do the needful. Civil Miscellaneous No.1081/C of 1987, by which the said permission was sought, is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. I agree with learned counsel for the respondent that the civil revision is not properly constituted because it is not accompanied by copies of the exhibited documents. Even if the permission to file the said copies had been granted, the civil revision would have been properly constituted on 1st March, 1987 when the said copies were produced before me. By then, a period of more than one year had elapsed after the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. As observed in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan, cited by learned counsel for the respondent, no period of limitaion has been prescribed for filing of civil revision and it can be entertained even after normal unprescribed period of 90 days, if the Court is satisfied with regard to delay beyond 90 days. Petitioner has, however, failed to satisfy me with regard to the delay of nearly one year inasmuch as he has not given a plausible explanation therefor.
13. It may also be stated here that this revision has been filed by the Federation of Pakistan which was not a party before the two Courts below. Also, defendants in the suit, who had preferred the appeal, have not been impleaded as parties in this civil revision. This too shows that proper care was not taken by the petitioner in filing this revision petition.
14. What emerges from the above discussion is that the petitioner was not only guilty of gross negligence but also of contumacy. It was as far back as in 1969 that the respondent lost his job due to his removal from service. The suit brought by him to challenge the order of his removal from service met with success, but he has not so far been able to avail of the fruits of the decree granted by the learned trial Court because of the unsuccessful appeal against the said decree and the filing of the present civil revision. Thus, he is in a state of suspense for the last 18 years. Viewed in this background, negligent and contumacious conduct of the petitioner seems to be all the more actionable.
15. In result, I hold that there is no properly constituted revision before me. Even if there is one, it suffers from the defect of laches and deserves to be dismissed on that ground. This civil revision, accordingly, fails. It is dismissed in limine without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.