Mst. Jameela Bibi (Deceased) through LRs vs Mst. Fatima Bibi (Deceased)
This matter concerns the limitation period applicable to an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's restoration application, incorrectly applying the thirty-day limitation period prescribed for appeals under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the thirty-day limitation period for appeals or suits applies to civil revisions, or if a different period governs. The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1908 does not contain a specific article governing the restoration of civil revisions dismissed in default. Consequently, the Court ruled that the residuary provision, Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, applies, which provides a limitation period of three years from the date the right to apply accrues. The Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the petitioner's application was filed well within this three-year period. The Court also highlighted the legislative anomaly regarding the disparate limitation periods for restoring suits and appeals versus civil revisions.
- What is the limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the restoration of civil revisions?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs applications for which no specific period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule?
- Article 163, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 168, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 181, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J. The civil revision filed by the petitioner before the High Court was dismissed for non- prosecution on 30.03.2019. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the said revision on 15.10.2019. The said application was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 passed in C.Ms. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2019 on the ground that it was barred by time.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the case. The application for restoration of the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed on the basis of Article 168 (mistakenly mentioned in the impugned order as Article 169) of the Third Division of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 ("The Act"), which provides for a period of thirty days for maintaining such an application in case of an appeal. Perusal of the First Schedule of the Act reveals that Article 163 deals with application for restoration of the suits dismissed for non- prosecution and provides for a period of thirty days from the date of dismissal for filing such an application, while Article 168 provides for readmission of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and provides a period of limitation of thirty days from the date of dismissal for filing an application for restoration. There is, however, no specific article, which deals with the application for restoration of civil revision dismissed in default, therefore, reliance has to be placed on Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Act, which provides that for an application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule the period of limitation is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In the present case Article 181 is attracted and a period of three years is available to the petitioner to make an application for restoration of the civil revision. See Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others (PLD 2016 SC 712).
3. In this background of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed.
4. We however, express our concern that for applications for restoration of a suit and an appeal, the period of limitation under the Act is 30 days, whereas the period for filing an application for restoration of a civil revision is three years. The logic for such differentiation is not clear and may be taken up in some appropriate case for consideration as this distinction has not been questioned in the instant case.
Cited by 3 cases
- Haji Musharraf Mahmood Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs vs Sardarzada Zafar Abbas (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc 2024 SCP 145, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 588, 2025 PLJ SC 23
- Haji Maqbool Ahmad vs Nadar Khan and others 2023 PHC 608
- Haji MAQBOOL AHMAD Versus NADAR KHAN 2024 CLC 1588