' This revision petition arises out of suit filed by Muhammad Islam Khan and Haji Alam Khan plaintiffs on 25-5-1992 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu against Amir Sher Bahadur and others defendants for possession of suit-land through specific performance of Sale-deed No.420 registered on 5-11-1937. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on all grounds, legal as well factual and claim of the plaintiffs was denied. Relevant issues were formulated and the parties were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.
Resultantly, the learned trial Judge by his Judgment and decree, dated 17-11-1996 partially decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against defendant No.1 to the extent of an area measuring one Kanal and 17 Marlas. An appeal was preferred there against before learned District Judge, Bannu who transferred the file to Additional District Judge, Bannu. Vide Judgment, dated 21-9-1999, the appeal was accepted, the impugned Judgment and decree of the trialCourt, dated 17-11-1996 was set aside and the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan Saddozi, Advocate for respondent No.1 at the very outset, on the strength of cases reported as Said Muhammad petitioner v. Sher Muhammad and two others (2001 M LD 1546) Lahore raised an objection that the revision petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation and as such, merits dismissal. He further contended that no application for condonation of delay has been filed. He next submitted that the benefit of subsection 2 of section 12 of the Limitetion Act, 1908 is not extended to apply to the revision applications.
3. On the contrary, Mr. Sanaullah Shamim Gandapur, Advocate for the petitioners contended that the revision petition was filed within limitation of ninety days after computing the period of supply of. Documents and the objection of limitation was not available to the respondents.
4. A perusal of the record would reveal that the Appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Bannu has passed the impugned Judgment on 21-9-1999. The petitioners filed application for obtaining certified copies on 22-9-1999 and the copy of the Judgment was supplied to them on 5-10-1999.
The revision was filed on 14-1-2000. The limitation for filing the revision petition has been provided in section 115, C.P.C. By Act No.VI of 1992 amendment in section 115, C.P.C. Has been made, whereby the period prescribed for filing a revision is 90 days, which is not provided by Limitation Act, subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act has contemplated as under:-- "In computing period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of Judgment, the day on which the Judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed shall be excluded."
5. The benefit of above said provision of law is available only in cases where there is an appeal, an application for leave to appeal or an application for a review of Judgment. This subsection nowhere mentions revision applications. The omission of the words 'revision application' in the aforequoted subsection is not accidental. This subsection restricts its application to merely two kinds of applications namely an application for leave to appeal and an application for review of Judgment only. The benefit of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not attached to the revision applications.
6. The law givers had amended section 115, C.P.C., by means of an Act VI of 1992, whereby following amendment was incorporated:-- "Amendment of section 115, Act V of 1908.---In the said Code, in section 115, in subsection (1) in the proviso for the full-stop at the end a colon shall be substituted and thereafter the following further proviso shall be added namely: ' Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court."
7. The perusal of the above amendment contemplates that an application under section 115. C.P.C.
Shall be made within 90 days of decision of the Subordinate Court. Prior to the above amendment no statutory period of prescribed by the Law for filing of the revisions but the superior Courts had always insisted that ordinarily such proceedings should be instituted within the period of 90 days. It is pertinent to mention here that in the judicial system the law of limitation has got its own- significance relating to the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings. The Limitation Act contains in its fold remedial provisions like sections 5, 12, 14 which empower the Courts to enlarge the pefiod of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case. Provided these provisions have been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application the Court of its own shall not be competent to make applicable the provisions of these sections. In this behalf it is noticed that under C.P.C., there are various provisions where section 5 of the Limitation Act has expressly been made applicable to condone the delay in filing the proceedings if sufficient cause exist in favour of the party. Who seeks the condonation of delay. But this section of the Limitation Act had not been made applicable in accordance to section 29 of the Limitation Act, on the revision under section 115, C . P. C .
8. The petitioner has neither filed an application for condonation of delay nor the learned counsel for the petitioners has orally and verbally prayed for condonation of delay, thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the revision petition has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence, not maintainable.
9.Pursuant to above discussion, this revision being barred by time is dismissed with no order as to costs.