' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 19th October, 2001 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby Revision Application No,80 of 2000 filed by petitioner has been dismissed being barred by time.
2. As the case has been decided on the question of limitation, therefore, facts giving rise to instant petition are not being mentioned in detail except to the effect that the judgment passed by VI- Additional District Judge, Hyderabad was pronounced on 7th December, 1999, petitioner submitted an application for obtaining its certified copy on 26th December, 1999, which was supplied to him on 21st March, 2000, whereby revision application was filed on 21st March, 2000. Alongwith memo of revision, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted in view of the objection so raised by the office with regard to the fact that as the petition has been filed beyond the period of three months. Whereas the case of petitioner was that the petition has been filed within time provided time spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment/decree as well as other documents required to be appended with the memo. Of petition in terms of section 115, subsection
(1) of first proviso of C.P.C. Is excluded. Learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh declined to grant benefit of the period spent by the petitioner in obtaining certified copies for the reason that section 12 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in respect of the proceedings instituted under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the case of Said Muhammad v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others 2001 MLD 1546, as a result whereof revision application was dismissed being barred by time vide impugned judgment against which instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3., Office has pointed out that this petition is also barred by 24 days, therefore, in view of such objection an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of petition has been filed.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, notice was issued to the respondents, which now has been published in ' Daily ' Nawa-e-Waqat, dated 29th June, 2002, no one has appeared on their behalf.
5. We have considered the application for condonation of delay and have also gone through the certificate appended by the Copyist Branch of the High Court. A perusal whereof indicates that the application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 19th October, 2001 was submitted on 22nd October, 2001 whereas the same was certified on 11th December, 2001 and supplied to him on 13th December 2001. According to learned counsel, the office of the Copyist Branch had not issued notice to petitioner for collecting the certified copy of the judgment for a particular date in terms of section 12(5) of the Limitation Act and if the time is calculated from, the date of certifying the copy i.e, 11th December, 2001, then the petition is within time which was submitted on 12th January, 2002.
6. In view of above position, we are of the opinion that the petition is within time.
7. Learned counsel on merits contended that the judgment relied upon by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in the case of Said Muhammad (ibid) is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the instant case because in this case the effect of the 2nd proviso of subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P.C. Was not considered according to which the petitioner while submitting revision application is obliged to support it with the copies of the pleadings and orders of the subordinate Court. Therefore, unless the certified copies of such documents are not obtained, they cannot be appended with the petition, as such the time spent in obtaining their certified copies shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation, under section 12 of the Limitation Act.
8. It was also his contention that proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. Are instituted in the form of revision application and such application is covered under section 12(1) of the Limitation Act for the purposes of computing the limitation period. Besides, he stated that assuming that section 12(1) is not applicable but to give full effect to the first proviso of section 115, C.P.C., the benefit of the time spent by the petitioner in obtaining certified copies will be extended following the principle of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.
9. Alternatively, he stated that although period of limitation of 90 days has been provided by amending section 115, C.P.C. (vide Act No,VI of 1992) but prior to it, as per rule. 56 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules, the period of 90 days was provided for filing of revision application exclusive of time required for obtaining certified copies. Therefore, even if the case of petitioner is examined from this angle, he was entitled for the benefit of , exclusion of time spent by him in obtaining the certified copies. He also contended that in the interest of justice, time spent in obtaining certified 'copies be excluded because copies of the documents which are required to be c 'appended with the petition have to be obtained from the other agency on which the petitioner has no control and if on account of negligence on the part of such authority, copies are not supplied within 90 days, it does not mean that petitioner will lose his valuable rights to agitate the matter before the High Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner. A perusal of impugned judgment reveals that petitioner could not get relief, as application filed by him under section 115, C.P.C. Being revision petition was found to be barred by time because petitioner was not held entitled for exclusion of the time spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. In this behalf reliance was placed by the High Court on the judgment in the case of Said Muhammad (ibid). There is no cavil with the proposition that tinder subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act, time spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment for filing of revision petition is not excluded and this view is prevailing when a judgment in the case of Tahir Ali and others v. Chief Judge, Karachi Small Causes Court, Karachi and another (PLD 1960 Karachi 795) was pronounced by the High Court of Sindh. However, even then implication of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Limitation Act was not considered, according to which in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. There is no doubt that by invoking revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, an application is moved under section 115, C.P.C., therefore, in the instant case one of the question for consideration would be as to whether time spent in obtaining certified copies of the documents for filing of an application under section 115, C.P.C. (revision petition) cannot be excluded under subsection (1) of section. 12 of the Limitation Act. Besides it, there would be another aspect of the case namely assuming that neither subsection (1) nor subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act were attracted and as per proviso of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C., if revision was filed beyond the period of 90 days, Court had powers to condone the delay in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mian Muhammad v. Syed Shamimullah and 2 others 1995 SCMR 69 wherein Mr. Justice Abdul Qadir Chaudhry (as then he was) speaking on behalf of the Bench observed that revision even though filed beyond the period of 90 days could, however, be entertained, if Court was satisfied as to the reasons for delay. There would be another significant aspect of the case namely that prior to amendment in section 115, C.P.C. (vide Act No,VI of 1992) no period for filing of the petition was prescribed. But in pursuance of this amendment the law-givers not only had fixed the time of 90 days for filing of the revision application under section 115, C.P.C.
But simultaneously had placed an obligation on the petitioner to furnish certified copies of pleadings and the orders of subordinate Court. Therefore, to give full effect to this provision of law subsection (1) of section 12 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted because the word 'application' has been used therein, as such it would cause no prejudice to any of the parties of revision is treated as an application for the purpose of excluding the time spent in obtaining certified copies of documents and such liberal interpretation not only extend the benefit to the petitioner but it would also be beneficial for good number of other litigants.
11. The contention of the learned counsel based on the provisions of rule 56 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules also requires to be examined in depth because according to it the time spent in obtaining certified copies for filing of a revision under section 115, C.P.C. Has been permitted to be excluded.
Relevant rule is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "56. Time for applications for exercise of civil jurisdiction.--Applications for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code, section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or section 32 of the Karachi Small Cause Courts Act, 1929, shall be made within 90 days from the date of the decision complained against, exclusive of the time required for obtaining copies."
' If the arguments so raised by the petitioner's counsel succeeded then at least to the extent of the Province of Sindh, time spent in obtaining certified copies will be excluded and time in filing of revision petition shall be enlarged.
' Thus, above questions inter alia being of public importance require to be examined in depth, therefore, leave to appeal is granted.