' This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 23-11-1992 and 3-4-1994 passed by the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively, deciding lis against the petitioner.
2. Precisely, necessary facts for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, challenging sale-deed dated 22-2-1979, basing her title on a registered sale-deed dated 22-3 1979, claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the property subject of suit. Suit of respondent No.1 after contest by the petitioner, was decreed and sale deed in favour of the petitioner was adjudged by the learned trial Court.
3. Petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the trial Court, but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 3-4-1994. Petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Court, which is barred by limitation.
4. Petitioner along his revision petition filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that limitation for filing an appeal would start running from the date of delivery of copies and not from the date of preparation of those copies.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, certified copies were prepared by the copying agency on 2.5-1994, but were delivered on 17-5-1994 and in this manner time should be computed from 17-5-1994. He in this behalf relied on the case of Iftikhar Ali v. Sh. Abdul Rashid and others 2003 SCM R 1560.
5. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents asserted that whatever ground may be for condonation of delay, since section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in view of its provisions in section 29(2) is not applicable because limitation for filing of civil revision before this Court has been provided by section 115, C.P.C., a special statute.
6. I have considered the argument of the parties and have examined the record. Primarily, time requisite for obtaining certified copies which is to be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is till the date copies are prepared.Or the date given by copying agency, whichever is later in all the cases in which copying agency gives some date to the applicant who has applied for certain copes. In the rest of cases in which no date is given by the copying agency like the situation involved in the case dealt by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ali v. Sh. Abdul Rashid and others (supra) the period of limitation would undeniable start from the date of delivery of those copies in absence of any notice by the copying agency. Law by this time is settled and there are chain of judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that whenever copying agency gives some date for receipt of certified copies, the limitation would start running from the date of preparation of copies or the date given by the agency whichever is later. In the instant case, it is none of the case of the petitioner that copying agency did not give him a date for receipt of certified copies, thus according to my humble view, judgment relied by him is not applicable.
Thus after computation of time from the date of preparation of certified copies i.e. 2-5-1994, this revision petition is barred by limitation. Though this is the ground urged in support of condonation of delay, yet I am of the View that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not available for condonation of delay occasioned in filing of a civil revision period of limitation having been provided by section 115, C.P.C. And this controversy has been put to rest by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while giving alighted judgment in the case of Allah Dino and another v.
Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others v. Masood Enterprises 2001 YLR 327. I respectfully following the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Allah Dino and another v.
Muhammad Shah and others (supra) find that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not available for condonation of delay occasioned in filing this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed being barred by time, with no order as to costs.