CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, LAHORE through District Coordination Officer, Lahore vs Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED AMIN

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Petitioner failed to succeed before the High Court as its revision petition against the order of Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 8th June, 2002 has failed being barred by limitation. For convenience, concluding para. From the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below:- "The petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted where the time is prescribed by a special statute in view of section 29 of the Limitation Act as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286. It is pertinent to mention here, that the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out contrary law laid down by this Court while interpreting section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 in Said Muhammad's case (supra) 2001 M LD 1546.

' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is time-barred and the same is dismissed as barred by time."

2. Learned counsel contended that on account of mistake in calculation of time, petitioner was non-suited; otherwise, revision petition filed on its behalf was within time.

3. It may be noted that on legal plan, he admits that in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCM R 286, section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable on the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the caveat, we have calculated the period/time spent by the petitioner in filing the revision petition. In this behalf, it may be noted that Additional District Judge pronounced the judgment on 10th June, 2002 and application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment was filed on 17th June, 2002, which was ready and delivered on 19th July, 2002 and in this manner it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed revision petition on or before 13th October, 2002 but admittedly it was filed on 21st October, 2002, beyond the period of limitation, therefore, in our opinion learned High Court has rightly non-suited the petitioner.

' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition, as such same is dismissed and leave declined.