' Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that one Muhammad Shafi was serving as a Khalasi
(Peon) with the Estate Inspector, Office of the Divisional Superintendent, Railways, Lahore, when he breathed his last. Claiming to be the widow of. Muhammad Shafi Mst. Allah Rakhi, who is respondent No,3 herein, withdrew a sum of Rs,8,477.90. This amount was payable to Muhammad Shafi on account of G.P. Fund, Pension, Gratuity, Group Insurance, etc. Thereafter, respondents Nos.l and 2, namely, Muhammad Arshad and another, demanded the said amount stating that they were sons of Muhammad Shall deceased. As for respondent No3, Mst. Allah Rakhi. Their plea was that she, had been divorced by Muhammad Shafi before his death and, therefore, she was not entitled to have anything out of the said amount. Plea of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was rejected by the Railway authorities on the ground that they had already paid the said sum to Mst. Allah Rakhi.
Respondents Nos.1 and 2, therefore, filed a suit against the petitioners, Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another, and respondent No,3, Mst. Allah Rakhi, for recovery of the aforesaid amount. The suit was dismissed by a Civil Judge whereupon they went in appeal before an Additional District Judge.
The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this civil revision by the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that the civil revision suffers from the defect of laches and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground. He maintained that it was filed after about 9 months of the passing of the impugned judgment and decree and no explanation had been offered for this long delay on their part. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision petition could be made within 3 years and, therefore, the delay of 9 months was of no consequence. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on Hakim Farzand Ali v. Syed. Zafar Ahmad Shah 1986 M LD 2102. In the case under report, it was held that under Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, a revision petition can be filed within 3 years.
3. In the case of Hakim Farzand Ali, which was decided by my learned brother Akhtar Hassan, J.
Reference had been made to the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. v. M/s. United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 97 and to an unreported judgment of a Division Bench in Civil Revision No,154-D/85, Feroze Khan etc. v. Zaman Ali etc. Which was decided at Rawalpindi Bench of this Court.
4. On the other hand, it was urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the latest view of the Supreme Court on the subject was contained in the case of Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that although no limitation has been prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908 or by any rule embodied in the High Court Rules and Orders for filing of a revision petition yet the High Court could entertain a revision petition even beyond the normal unprescribed period of 90 days if it is satisfied as regards delay in filing the revision petition.
5. The aforementioned unreported judgment of the Division Bench has not been shown to me by learned counsel for the petitioners. As for the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. Which was referred to by my learned brother Akhtar Hassan, J. In the case of Hakim Farzand Ali, it may be noted that it was on the ground of laches that my learned brother had dismissed the revision petition filed by Hakim Farzand AIL In that case he also referred to the rule laid down in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan and did not say that the said rule could not be followed in view of what had been held in the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. Since the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan was decided by the Supreme Court after about 11 years of the disposal of the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. To my mind, law laid down in the case of Manager Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan deserves to be followed in preference to the one enunciated in the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. It is also noteworthy that while deciding the case of Manager Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan although the Supreme Court did not say, in so many words, yet it had almost disapproved the view expressed in the case of Muhammad Swatch, etc. Inasmuch as in the case of Muhammad Swaleh etc. It had been said that the Limitation Act (Article 181 of the First Schedule) applied to the revision petitions but in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan, it was held that the said Act did not apply to such petitions, and in the case of Muhamamd Swatch etc., the period of II- rotation was stated to be 3 years but in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan it was said to be the unprescribed period of 90 Jays. As stated earlier, the view expressed in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan is the latest view of the Supreme Court on the subject. I, therefore, with respect, follow the said view and hold that if a revision petition is made after 90 days it cannot be entertained unless satisfactory explanation is offered for delay in the filing thereof.
6. As for the instant revision petition, it is not disputed that it was made after about 9 months of the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. There is no application by the petitioners for condonation of delay nor any explanation for delay beyond 90 days has been furnished, in the revision petition or elsewhere. It is, therefore., not possible for me to overlook the long delay on the part of the petitioners. Resultantly, relying on the law laid down in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan, I hold that the revision petition in hand suffers from the defect of lathes and is liable to be dismissed for that defect alone.
7. In this view of the matter, the instant civil revision fails. It is, accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by leaving the parties to