' This revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat on 4-1-1993, an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18-5-1991 of the civil Court Gujrat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Fateh Khan respondent sought a declaratory decree to the effect that the order dated 4-11-1985 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue is illegal, void, against the fact, based on mala fide and inoperative upon his right. He claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the land as described in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. However, the suit of the respondent Fateh Khan was decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18-5-1991. Appeal of Abdul Aziz petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat on 4-1-1993. The petitioner filed this instant revision petition before this Court on 17-4-1994 petitioner moved Civil Miscellaneous No,1-C of 1996 under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision petition. The ground urged in support of the petitioner that:- "That the appellate Court pronounced judgment on 4-1-1993 in the absence of the petitioner as well as his attorney who was confined to bed. The petitioner being abroad and out of the country could not be informed of the decision and he had no knowledge, whatsoever, about the said decision of the appellate Court.
' That the petitioner arrived in Pakistan on 14-2-1994 and thereafter enquire about the case from his counsel on 10-3-1994 about the fate of his appeal. The petitioner came to know about the decision of appellate Court on 10-3-1994 so he immediately applied for obtaining. Copies of the judgment decree of the appellate Court dated 4-1-1993 which he obtained on 16-3-1994..
8. That after obtaining the copies of decree/judgment of Appellate Court the petitioner approached his present counsel to file the titled revision petition."
3. Similarly, Civil Miscellanies No,1-C of 1996 has been moved by the respondent for passing an order of dismissal of civil revision, being barred by time. Admittedly the appellate Court pronounced the judgment on 14-1-1993. The revision has been filed on 17-4-1994 which is barred by one year and 3 months and 17 days. According to the petitioner showing he was out of the country and arrived in Pakistan on 14-2-1994, and thereafter enquired about the case from his counsel on 10-3-1994, about the fate of his appeal. The petitioner came to know about the decision of the appellate Court on 10-3-1994. So, he immediately applied for obtaining the copies of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court dated 4-1-1993. If the period from the date of judgment and decree dated 4-1-1993 to 14-2-1994 when the petitioner arrived in Pakistan is excluded even then the petitioner has failed to explain that why he has not enquired about the case from his counsel from 14-2-1994 to 10-3-1994. Even otherwise a period of 90 days prescribed for filing the revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. Before this Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. In this view of the matter, benefit of section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. In case reported as Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and another (2001 SCM R 286), it has been held that where the statute governing the proceedings does not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder shall be controlled by the Limitation Act as a whole. But where the law under which proceedings have been launched prescribes itself a period of limitation like under section 115, C.P.C. Then benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed unless it has been made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908.
4. For what has been discussed above, the C.M.1-C of 1996 along with the civil revision is dismissed with costs.