KH. MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated.
31.5.2002, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal, briefly stated, are that land comprising survey Nos. 343 to 348, total measuring 18 kanals, situate in Balyah, Kotli, was in the continuous possession of Defence Department of Government of Pakistan. Later on this land was acquired for the purposes of defence through an award No. 25 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition, District Kotli on 6.3.2000 for a consideration of Rs.2,07,000/- per kanal. Respondent No. 1 feeling aggrieved by the order of the .Collector filed a reference for enhancement of compensation amount before the. District Judge Kotli who accepted the same vide his order dated 31.8.2001. Consequently the compensation of the land was enhanced from Rs.2,07,000/- to Rs.4,50,000/- per kanal alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The judgment and decree passed by the District Judge Kotli on 31.8.2001 Were assailed by the appellant before the High Court through an appeal which was dismissed vide the judgment under challenge dated 31.5.2002 on a legal defect that the copy of the decree drawn by the District Judge was not appended with the memo. Of appeal before the High Court.
3. The present appeal was drafted by the learned counsel for the appellant on 14.10.2002, however, the same was presented in the registry office of this Court on 18.10.2002. An application was moved by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 before this Court on 8.5.2003 seeking permission to amend his concise statement by raising the following new points:-
(i) that the appeal was barred by limitation as the same was filed after the period of five months, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case the appeal was liable to be dismissed summarily on this ground; and
(ii) that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition. Act read with Order XLV, CPC were not complied with, therefore, the appeal in the present form was not maintainable.
After taking objections from the appellant, as the aforementioned two points were purely legal, therefore, the respondent was allowed to file amended concise statement by making addition to the extent of these points.
4. At the very outset of the arguments, Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, argued that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred, therefore, the same may be dismissed. His other objection was that .The appeal before this Court has been filed without complying with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Order XLV, C.P.C.
5. While repudiating the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that under Section 42(11)(d) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as the Constitution Act), right of appeal has been provided in certain cases. According' to him, no limitation has been provided under the said provision or under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978. Therefore, the question of limitation, raised on behalf of the respondent, is without any substance. Reliace was placed in this regard on the cases reported as Azad Govt. And others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others (1996 SCR 136) and Govt. Of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi Khan and others (1999 SCR 291).
6. In both the above-referred authorities it has been laid down that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 42111)(d) of the Constitution Act and under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules; reason for that, as mentioned in these authorities, is "perhaps by mistake or oversight". In the first referred case it was admitted that no limitation has been prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 42(11)(d) of the Constitution Act and under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules. However, what can be the period of limitation for filing a direct appeal before this Court was left open for decision in some other case and the appeal in that case was decided on merits. In the second authority it was specifically mentioned that there is no limitation fixed for filing a direct appeal before the Supreme Court but the question even in that appeal was not resolved.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, argued that even though he has no direct authority on the aforesaid point but, according to him, the period for filing a direct appeal before this Court cannot be more than that as has been prescribed for filing petitions for special leave to appeal. As a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court can be filed before this Court within a period of sixty days, therefore, the limitation for availing appellate jurisdiction of this Court at the most would be sixty days and not beyond that period.
8. We gave our anxious thought to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and with the aid of the Research and Reference Officers of this Court tried our best to search case- law for and against the moot question of limitation for filing direct appeal before this Court. We have noticed that no limitation is prescribed for availing the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court either under the Limitation Act or under the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas the period for filing an appeal in the High Court is specifically provided under Article 156 of the Limitation Act. The same is the state of law even in India.. However, a practice is developed in India. As well as in Pakistan to entertain revision petitions filed within the period prescribed for an appeal and beyond that period only such revision petitions are entertained wherein some good cause is furnished for the delay. So the superior judiciary made revisional jurisdiction available to the litigant public through unprescribed period of limitation of 90 days. As said earlier a practice is developed to receive revision petitions as of right which are filed within a period of ninety days but if any party has availed the revisional jurisdiction beyond this period, he is required to furnish explanation by disclosing some sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.
9. In Kesho Prasad Singh v. Mohoendra Prasad and others (AIR 1933 Patna 582) it was observed that although it is not a matter of law but it is a matter of uniform practice that civil revisions are entertained only if the same are filed within three months of the date of the order sought to be revised.
10. In Ahmad Sheikh v. Paris Museum (AIR 1959 J&K 76) it was observed that although the Legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation within which the revision application should be filed yet it has been the uniform practice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and also of the other Indian High Courts that the revision application should be filed without delay within the period prescribed for filing an appeal unless some good reasons are shown for the delay in filing the revision applications.
11. In Khadim Hussain and others v. Mst. FazIan Bib I and others (1997 M LD 411) it was observed that no period of limitation is prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1908, for the exercise of power of revision by the High Court. Ninety days' period as a rule of practice, however, is insisted upon for observance by the High Court. Any delay beyond such period is required to be explained by party invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Court. Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is therefore inapplicable for application for revision under Section 115, C.P.C. Revision in that case was filed after 2 years and no special circumstances justifying such delay and for condoning. The same were brought on record, therefore, the revision was held hit by gross laches and was dismissed.
12. In Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Sadiq (1987 CLC 1631) it was observed as follows:- ....... Even if the permission to file the said copies had been granted, the civil revision would have been properly constituted on 1st March, 1987 when the said copies were produced before me. By then, a period of more than one year had elapsed after the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. As observed in the case of Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan, cited by learned counsel for the respondent, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing of civil revision and it can be entertained even after normal unprescribed period of 90 days, if the Court is satisfied with regard to delay beyond 90 days. Petitioner has, however, failed to satisfy me with regard to the delay of nearly one year inasmuch as he has not given a plausible explanation thereof."
(underlining is ours)
13. In Pakistan ,v. Khuda Yar and another (PLD 1975 SC 678) it was held as follows:- "We now come to the next ground of attack of maintainability of the revision petition before the High Court on the point of limitation. We have already referred to a large number of authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention that although no limitation was prescribed yet the revision petition had to be filed within 90 days.
The principle laid down in these authorities is that revision petition filed beyond the unprescribed limitation of 90 days could also be entertained if the Court was satisfied as to the reasons for the delay."
14. From the survey of the afore-mentioned case-law. It becomes clear that even though no period of limitation was prescribed in the Limitation Act as under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but a practice was developed and the Courts insisted upon the observance of the same by the litigant public to seek the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court within a period of ninety days, the period fixed for availing the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The party availing the revisional jurisdiction beyond such period is required to explain such delay. In past, in the case titled Azad Govt. And others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi and others (1996 SCR 136) the question of limitation for filing direct appeal before this Court was left open for decision in some other case. We have noticed that this controversy upto this time has not been resolved. Right of appeal is a statutory right; the same can be availed by observing the mandatory requirements fixed by law.
However, to meet the ends of justice the Courts of law had in exceptional cases refrained from taking hypothetical view in respect of procedural requirements laid down under law and in exceptional cases overlooked the procedural technicalities. To have a uniform policy, in our view, everyone who wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under any statutory provision for the redressal of his grievance, must fulfil the procedural requirements laid down by law.
15. In Azad Jammu and Kashmir if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute is above Rs.50,000/-., and aggrieved party can seek the indulgence of this Court in respect of its grievance by filing a direct appeal under Section 42(1 1)(d) of the Constitution Act. We concede that on account of oversight or negligence no limitation has been prescribed even under the Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The scheme of law is that there should be an end to the litigation.
Therefore, wherever a remedy has been provided, the procedure to avail the same and the period within which that remedy can be availed is also provided under law or rules framed to carry out the purposes of such law. No matter is left open for indefinite period. In other words it is not at the pleasure of an aggrieved contesting party to avail the jurisdiction of the next forum provided under law within indefinite period ; particularly the appeal. Is a right which is provided by law and there is always. a limitation provided for availing this remedy. If within such period of limitation the right of appeal is not availed of, then the issues resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction through judicial verdict shall bar fresh litigation after the prescribed period at the very outset, because in such case the matter in dispute having passed in rem judication shall bar the re-opening of that matter. The reason is that the litigation must come to an end and even under the public policy which has been owned by the law, no individual can be vexed twice for the same cause. If we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case that the right of appeal can be availed of at any time as no limitation is provided in the rules or in the Constitution Act, then in that case the Defence Department of Government of Pakistan shall suffer hardships as in so many cases the land acquired to meet the requirements of defence purposes in which the litigation has come to an end by the pronouncements of the High Court, the private parties may start filing appeals against the same before this Court. However, as finality is to be given to pronouncements of. Courts and no matter can be left open for indefinite period at the pleasure of the contesting parties, therefore, to avail the jurisdiction of appeal before this Court, the period must be provided.. In our view, the period for filing direct appeal before this Court cannot be beyond the period fixed for availing the jurisdiction of this Court where special leave to appeal is required to be filed. The necessary addition shall be incorporated in the Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
16. In the present case the appeal has been filed after five months. Even the copies of documents were obtained by the appellant beyond the period of sixty days. No premium can be allowed to a negligent party for his indolent and lethargic attitude. We have noticed that no explanation whatsoever' has been tendered by the appellant. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.