ATTA-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Originally this is a second appeal presented on 27.8.1996 against the judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1996 and 25th of March, 1996, passed by the District Judge Badin in 1st Civil Appeal No. 8/95. Along with this appeal an application bearing MA 240/96 under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay as the appeal was filed after delay of 54 days but this Court by order dated 27.2.1998 observed that this appeal was barred by 20 days. Be that as it may be, subsequently on 9.3.1998 this second appeal was converted into revision as the second appeal was not maintainable in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction as provided under Section 102, CPC. Thereafter the matter kept coming-up for katcha peshi and also for hearing of application bearing M.A. No. 240/96.
2. Today Mr. Rahmat Jethanand submitted that normally he would have not objected to the condonation of delay but the legal position is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable to Section 115, CPC and, therefore, this Court has no power to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Mr. Abdul Sattar Qazi, Advocate has not been able to rebut this position though he referred to Section 5 of the Limitation Act where alongwith the appeal revision application has also been mentioned. A reading of that Section shows that it can only be applied if the provision of that Section are made applicable to the cases referred therein. It is an admitted position that Section 5 has not been made applicable to the revision applications.
4. Both the counsel submit that the Legislature perhaps due to oversight has not taken into consideration this fact and Section 5 has not been made applicable to Section 115, CPC which in fact should have been. Mr. Rahmat submits that according to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karamat Hussain v. Muhammad Zaman (PLD 1987 SC 139), the revision is a right but not a privilege. In case of Mo/vi Abdul Qayum v. All Asghar Shah, reported in 1992 SC 241, it is held that in a way revisional jurisdiction partakes of appellate jurisdiction and for the purpose of execution the rule of merger equally apply to the decree passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, provision of Section 5 should have been made applicable to Section 115, CPC.
5. In view of the above this revision application is dismissed as being time-barred.
6. Before parting I may observe that an amendment is required whereby Section 5 of Limitation Act be made applicable to the civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C.
7. A copy of this order be communicated to the Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan.