ALLAH DINO Versus MUHAMAMD SHAH

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. ---Petitioners seek leave to file appeal against the order, dated May 11, 2000 passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Bench, whereby Revision application filed by them has been dismissed.

2. Petitioners successfully sought conversion of an incompetent appeal barred by 54 days into a Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C. with the prayer that the delay occasioned in filing same till the institution of original proceedings i.e. appeal be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act and an application in respect whereof was separately submitted.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed condonation of delay in filing the revision principally on the ground that section 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act on a revision filed under section 115, C.P.C. which prescribes its own period of limitation i.e. 90 days.

3. Learned Single Judge in Chamber of High Court of Sindh associated himself with the contention put forward by respondents' counsel, and treating Civil Revision Petition barred by time dismissed the same vide impugned order, dated May 11, 2000.

4. Petitioners' learned counsel contended that section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to Civil Revision proceedings instituted under section 115, C.P.C. in terms of its language. Reliance was placed on 1994 SCMR 883 and 1995 SCMR 197.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the proposition under examination. There is no cavil with the argument that if the Statute governing the proceedings does not prescribe period of limitation, the proceedings instituted thereunder shall be controlled by the Limitation Act as a Whole. But where the law under which proceedings have been launched prescribes itself a period of limitation like under section 115, C.P.C. then benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed unless it has been made applicable as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, as held in the cases (i) The Canara Bank Ltd. v. The Warden Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1935 Bombay 35), (ii) Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz (PLD 1982 SC 572), (iii) Ali Muhammad and another v. Fuai Hussain and others (1983 SCMR 1239), (iv) Collector of Customs (Appraisement) v. Messrs Saleem Adaya, Karachi (PLD 1999 Karachi 76) and (v) Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The State and 3 others (1999 MLD 330).

6. The reported judgments cited by learned counsel being distinguishable need no detailed discussion.

7. Thus, we fail to notice any flaw in the impugned judgment relating to interpretation of section 5 of Limitation Act, qua section 115(2), C.P.C. therefore, no interference is called for.

The petition is accordingly dismissed being without any substance and leave to appeal is refused.

Q. M. H. /M. A. K./A-105/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.