' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Gujrat on 16-1-1991. The respondents filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. The learned trial Court framed the issues out of the pleadings of the parties on 6-4-1991, and the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff for 2-6-1991. Petitioner failed to produce the evidence on the said date and the case was adjourned on the request of the petitioner for 25-9- 1991. The petitioner failed to appear and bring the evidence before the trial Court on the said date.
Ultimately the Court dismissed the suit under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. Petitioner filed an application for restoration of the case before the trial Court which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 25-3-1992. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge Gujrat on 17- 4-1992 which was dismissed as time-barred vide judgment and decree dated 4-5-1994, hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the First Appellate Court did not consider the application of the petitioner filed under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation ti..-rtt in its true perspective for it has not been decided that the remedy which the petitioner sought through the application seeking review was not bona fide.
3. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the provisions of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act are only applicable in the suits and are not applicable at the appellate stage. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgment:-- ' Masood Ahmad and 2 others v. U.B.L. 1992 SCM R 424.
' Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor and another PLD 1991 SC 957.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that the application for restoration of the suit was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court on 26-9-1991 which was dismissed by the trial Court on 25-3-1992. The petitioner filed appeal before the first Appellate Court on 7-4-1992 which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 4-5-1994 as time-barred. The question of law has been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCM R 584 and condoned the delay by giving the benefit of section 14 and taking not consideration the act of the Court. The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the respondents is not in accordance with the latest trend of the Honourable Supreme Court in the subsequent judgments. After addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution the Honourable Supreme Court insisted that the cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Said Muhammad and others v. M. Sardar and others PLD 1989 SC 532.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition is accepted. Meaning thereby the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Judge shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge Gujrat on 20-3-2003 who is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits.
Revision .