ASMAT vs SAHIB ROKHAN S — 2023 PLD 64 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ASMAT VS SAHIB ROKHAN S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29---Civil revision---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Section 115 of C.P.C. provides its own limitation which is 90 days from the decision of the subordinate court and similarly the High Court has power to suo motu call for record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, then no limitation is provided in such eventuality and such suo motu exercise can be taken by the High Court at any time---Scrutiny of S. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908, reveals that where period of limitation has been prescribed in the special law such as S. 115, C.P.C., for filing of revision petition, thus, being a special law for the purpose of limitation as it provides its own limitation, S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has no applicability---Subsection (2) S. 29 of Limitation Act, 1908, provides exceptions about applicability of Limitation Act, 1908 and stipulates that Limitation Act, 1908, shall not be applicable except S. 4, Ss. 9 to 18 and S. 22 of Limitation Act, 1908---So applicability of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (condonation of delay) is out of question and, therefore, not applicable to the revision petition. S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29---Civil revision---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Section 115 of C.P.C. provides its own limitation of 90 days, thus, for law of limitation as per S. 29 it is a special provision and does not fall under the exceptions as provided by S. 29 of Limitation Act, 1908---Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable to civil revision petitions. S. 5---Extension of period in certain cases---Condonation of delay---Scope---Delay of each day must be properly and satisfactorily be explained and no flimsy grounds that matter was delayed because it passed through the hands of different officials due to which sufficient time was consumed, would be tenable in the eyes of law. S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29---Civil revision---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---In judicial system, the law of limitation has its own significance relating to the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings---Limitation Act, 1908 contains in its fold remedial provisions like Ss. 5, 12 & 14, which empowers the court to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case, provided these provisions have been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application, the court at its own shall not be competent to make applicable the provision of these sections---Under C.P.C. there are several provisions where Limitation Act, 1908, has expressly been made applicable to condone the delay in filing the proceedings if sufficient cause exists in favour of the party who seeks the condonation of delay but Limitation Act, 1908, has not been made applicable in accordance with S. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908 on the revision petition under S. 115 of C.P.C. as it is special law for the purpose of limitation, providing its own limitation. Scope---Law of limitation is a statute of repose, designed to quieten title and to bar stale and water-logged disputes and is to be strictly complied with---Statutes of limitation by their very nature are strict and inflexible---Law of limitation does not confer a right; it only regulates the rights of the parties---Such a regulatory enactment cannot be allowed to extinguish vested rights or curtail remedies, unless all the conditions for extinguishment of rights and curtailment of remedies are fully complied with letter and spirit---Law of limitation has no scope for any equitable or ethical construction---Justice, equity and good conscience do not override the law of limitation---Object of law of limitation is to prevent stale demands and so it ought to be construed strictly.

ASMAT vs SAHIB ROKHAN S — 2023 PLD 64 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD