PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others vs GHULAM SHABBIR
This civil revision petition was filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment rendered by the Additional District Judge, Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that the petition was filed well beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the revision petition was time-barred and dismissed it. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that because Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prescribes its own specific limitation period, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 are not applicable unless specifically invoked under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the government is not entitled to preferential treatment regarding the condonation of delay. It emphasized that valuable rights accrue to the opposing party upon the expiry of a limitation period, and laxity in prosecution by government departments cannot be excused.
- Can the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked to condone delay in filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the government entitled to preferential treatment or special consideration regarding the condonation of delay in legal proceedings?
- Does the expiry of a limitation period create vested rights for the opposing party?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 29(2), Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' This civil revision is barred by time and is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. No,1 of 2002) for condoning the delay. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali sought to be challenged through this revision petition, was rendered by him on 16-6-2001. Copy whereof was applied for on 22-1-2002 and was received on 26-1-2002. The present petition was filed before this Court on 4-2-2002.
2. 'Limitation for filing of revision petition before this Court prescribed by proviso to section 115 of Civil Procedure Code is 90 days. It is evident from the record that copy of the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court was applied for much after the expiry of 90 days i.e, the period available for filing of the revision petition. It has recently been ruled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286 that since section 115, C.P.C. Prescribes its own period of limitation, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed unless made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay, thus, is of no avail to the petitioner.
3. ' I am constrained to observe that in number of cases where the Government or any of its department is party, defence prosecution. When the matter comes before the Court, the Court is obliged to decide and dispose it of in accordance with law irrespective of the standings and status of the parties before it. Equality of all before the Courts of law in the litigation is the hallmark of administration and dispensation of justice, which cannot be at any cost sacrificed. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment in the matter of condonation of delay. The reason being that with the expiry of period of limitation valuable rights accrue and vest in the other side and such a party cannot be denuded of the same, unless delay is condoned for good reasons. Laxity and lack of proper prosecution by a party cannot be condoned by the Court. It is however, for the Government and the officials concerned to take proper steps for defending and prosecuting the causes before the Courts with due care and diligence.
4. ' The revision petition is barred by time, which is dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order may be sent to the Advocate-General, Punjab for such. Measures as may be considered appropriate by the Government.
Cited by 8 cases
- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Authority (KPRA) through Director General, Peshawar vs Messrs Legacy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Limited, Peshawar 2023 PTD 56
- Saleem Khan vs Mst. Zeenat, etc 2021 [M] C L R 1257
- SALEEM KHAN Versus Mst. ZEENAT 2023 CLC 1217
- MUZAFFAR ALI and others vs Dr. ZAFAR ULLAH MALIK 2015 NLR Civil 446, 2015 YLR 1332
- Muzaffar Ali, etc. vs Zafar Ullah Malik 2014 C.L.R. 1224
- MUZAFFAR ALI, ETCs vs DR. ZAFAR. ULLAH MALIK 2015 NLR Civil 446
- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Authority KPRA through its Director Gernal, Peshawar vs M_s Legacy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Limited, 111-A, Industrial Estate, Jamrud Road, Peshawa 2022 PHC 520
- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Authority (KPRA) through Director General, Peshawar vs M_s. Legacy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Limited, Peshawar Appeal_ Sales Tax Reference No. 58-P of 2022 PTCL 2023 CL. 413