MUHAMMAD FAKHAR Versus THE TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.

In this revision application under section 115, C.P.C. presented in this Court on 11‑11‑1981, the judgment, dated 6‑8‑1977 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, allowing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 157 of 1976, is challenged. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant had given the relevant facts and had also referred to the various orders passed in this matter. But then it was noticed that this revision application had been filed in November 1981, challenging the impugned judgment, which was passed in August, 1977, i.e. more than four years earlier. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that a complete and satisfactory explanation for this long delay is contained in para. 7 of this Revision Application, which reads as follows:‑‑

"The petitioner's Attorney engaged Mr. S. Aijaz Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, as petitioner was in Dubai, who drafted the revision petition and informed the attorney that revision application has been filed in High Court on 20‑10‑1977 and got attested affidavit of attorney of petitioner on 20‑10‑1977. After this the petitioner and his attorney went to Advocate's office several times but they were informed that revision has been filed in High Court and its turn will come after several years. Later on Mr. S. Aijaz Hussain Rizvi, Advocate was convicted in Holland and so petitioner and his attorney went to his office several times to take the file. With great difficulty the petitioner recently got the file and found that memo. of Revision _ Affida and Vakalatnama in' file. (Memo. of Revision; affidavit and Vakalatnama are filed marked 'F', 'G' & 'H' respectively).

It was argued by Mr. Abdul Majid, learned counsel for the applicant, that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision application under section 115, C.P.C. and even Article 181 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, which is a residuary Article for applications and which provides for a period of three years, is not applicable. In reply to a question of the Court, learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that a revision application has to be filed within a reasonable period and even if there is a delay, if satisfactory explanation can be entertained notwithstanding the delay as far as time is concerned. In this context the learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Swaleh v. United Grains and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 S C 97. Another judgment was relied upon by Mr. Abdul Majid Khan and that is a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Majidan Khanam v. District Judge, Vehari 1984 CLC 3270, where the distinction between an appeal and a revision was highlighted.

The revision filed by the applicant on its face suffers from laches. As already pointed out, the judgment in appeal was passed against the applicant by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, on 6‑8‑1977, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant, as observed earlier, has, however, relied upon para. 7 of this memo. of revision, which has been reproduced hereinabove and argued that a complete and satisfactory explanation for delay is available on record. In my view, the explanation given by the . applicant is not satisfactory so as to overlook laches and delay of over four years and three months that has taken place in the filing of the present revision application. According to para. 7 of the memo. of revision, when the appeal was dismissed in August, 1977, the applicant was in Dubai and Mr. Aijaz Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, had been engaged by the petitioner's attorney. Reliance had also been placed on the memo. of revision alleged to have been drafted in October, 1977, and the vakalatnama given in favour of Mr. S. Aijaz Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Neither the affidavit of the attoney has been filed nor the affidavits of the three Advocates, who have signed the Vakalatnama alleged to have been given in October, 1977. Then it is not stated in para.7 of the memo of petition that the petitioner or his attorney had been informed that the revision application, which was supposed to have been filed in October, 1977, had in fact been admitted to regular hearing. It has also. not been explained as to when the petitioner had returned from Dubai.

3. There being no satisfactory explanation on record for the dela of over four years and three months in the filing of the present revision application, Revision Application No. 304 of 1981 is dismissed on the grounds of latches but with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . / M‑395/ K Revision application dismissed.