' This civil revision against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Swat dated 10-10- 1989 and that of the learned Senior Civil Judge Swat dated 17-11-1987 was admitted to full hearing on 19-1-1991. However, today arguments were addressed on the application for condonation of delay, for revision was Hide after one year and eleven months of the impugned judgment of the District Judge. Similar application was also submitted in connected Civil Revision No,196/90.
2. I have heard Mr. J.D. Akbarji, the learned Advocate-General for the petitioners herein and Mr. Hidayatullah Jano, Advocate, for the respondents herein. They addressed arguments in C.M.
No,565/90 wherein prayer is made for condonation of the delay in filing of the revision petition. The learned Advocate- General argued that application for revision can be filed within three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The explanation for delay as given by the learned Advocate- General was that in Government cases they have to adopt the procedue as given in Punjab Law Manual and that the delay in filing the revision occurred in adopting that procedure. The learned Advocate-General, however, failed to produce the Punjab Law Manual wherein the procedure is laid down. It was argued by him that under Article 181 of the Limitation Act application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule or by section 48 of C.P.C., three years period is prescribed starting from the date when the right to apply accrues. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the following:-
(1) Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97);
(2) Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678) and
(3) Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd.), Bahawalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1981 SC 21).
3. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate, on the contrary argued that Civil Revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is normally filed within 90 days and that for the delay a reasonable explanation has to be given which is lacking in the instant case. Reliance was placed on Lahore Municipal Corporation v. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah and others (PLD 1982 Lahore 461), Akbar Khan v.
Muhammad Khan (1990 CLC 1828 Lahore).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case-law cited at the Bar.
Normally Civil Revisions under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code are filed in the High Court within 90 days from the date of the impugned judgment. The delay in filing the revisions is condoned if reasonable explanation for delay is given. In the instant case, no such explanation has been furnished. The so-called procedure as pointed out by the learned Advocate- General in filing the revision has not been shown to me. The case-law cited by him is also distinguishable. In the case of Muhammad Swaleh (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 97), the matter was with respect of application under section 151, C.P.C, for setting aside ex parte order to which Article 181 of the Limitation Act was held applicable by the learned Sub-Judge and not Article 164. The matter was taken to the High Court in revision under section 115. The High Court held that Article applicable was 164 and that application was time-barred. Thus revision was accepted and order of the lower Court was set aside. In appeal before the Supreme Court the arguments revolved round the point about the date of hearing of the suit. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and accepted the appeal. The argument that revision petition before the Supreme Court was time-barred was repelled. This obiter dicta which has been taken advantage of by the learned Advocate-General reads as under:- "The only article which could be applicable was the residuary Article 181 which provides a limitation of three years for an application, but even that Article will not stand in the way of the exercise of revisional power for, these powers can be exercised suo motu. At the same time it should be remembered that the respondents had themselves approached the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and once the High Court is seized of the case in the exercise of such jurisdiction it can in accordance with section 115, C.P.C., "make such order in the case as it thinks fit".
5. It will, therefore, be seen from the above that residuary Article 181 was applied to the application for setting aside the ex parte decree which could not stand in the way of exercise of revisional powers which can be exercised suo motu.
6. In the case of Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan (supra), it is no doubt held that no limitation period is prescribed by Limitation Act, 1908 for filing revision under section 115 in the High Court but at the same time it is held that revision filed beyond normally prescribed period of 90 days cannot be entertained if delay in filing of the revision is not explained satisfactorily. The case in hand is of the type that no satisfactory explanation for dely in filing the revision has been given. In the third cited case of Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd.), Bahawalnagar reported in (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 21), the rule laid down is about the limitation applicable to application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The issue of limitation with respect to revision has not not been discussed in this case.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly referred to the case reported in PLD 1982 Lahore 461 wherein it is held that when no reasonable explanation for delay is given, revision under section 115 is not maintainable. Similarly, in Akbar Khan (supra), reported in 1990 CLC 1828 Lahore, it is held that Civil Revision is to be Hied within ninety days. It is further held that although no period of limitation is prescribed by the Limitation Act, any time lapsing beyond that period of 90 days was the clear responsibility of the person invoking revisional jurisdiction to explain to the satisfaction of the Court. Inaction, negligence disentitles to claim discretionary relief. The Civil Revision was dismissed as barred by time by rule of laches.8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A. No,4-P, 1991 dated 4-5-1991, (photostat copy produced) wherein reasons advanced of official formalities in filing the appeal were not accepted. The august Supreme Court held:-
8. The reasons advanced by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay are not justified on any principle of law. The examination of the case in the department for such a long time is no ground for extending time. The Government department should also act like a vigilant suitor. These are not sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed as barred by time."
9. Placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, I hold that this revision is time-barred and reasons advanced for condonation of delay are not acceptable.
Hence discussion on the merits as also on C.M. No,296/91 for additional evidence is not required to be made.j Accordingly this Civil Revision is dismissed.