THE PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS' HOUSING AUTHORITY And 2 Others vs KHADIJABAI And Another
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a review application as time-barred, reasoning that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable to review petitions filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 could not be invoked to condone delay in filing a review application. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent and the express language of the statute, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is indeed applicable to review applications. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the High Court with directions to examine the sufficiency of the grounds for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 are available to seek condonation of delay in presenting a review application.
- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a review application filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court condone the delay in filing a review application under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has come up for hearing after notice to the respondents as to why it should not be converted into appeal and allowed for the reason that section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made applicable by the express provision of the law itself to reviews.
2. The petitioners tiled three applications before the High Court; the first was an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in presenting the Review Application, the second was an application for review of an Order earlier passed and the third application was under Order 41, Rule 5, C.P.C. For stay of the impugned judgment. The very first application by which condonation of delay in presenting the Review Application was sought was not entertained and the reason given was as hereunder:----- "Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any law or provisions either in the C.P.C. Or elsewhere which made section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to a petition for review under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. We therefore find no ground for condoning the delay. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly dismissed:'
As regards the other two applications, it was held as hereunder:----- "As we have refused to condone the delay for the reason that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to petition under Order 47, the main petition is dismissed as time-barred. The application under Order 41, rule 5 is consequently also dismissed.
3. Both the learned counsel are agreed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1), and the express words of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the provision thereof would be available for dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay.
4. In the circumstances, we convert this Petition into appeal, accept it, set aside the impugned order of the High Court in so far as it holds that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a Review Application and remand the case to the High Court which will examine the sufficiency of the grounds disclosed in the application for deciding it. No order is made as to costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 otherss vs BARKAT ALl and anothers 2000 YLR 1054
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM & 3 others vs BARKAT ALI and another 2001 C.L.R. 153