The SECRETARY B&R DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA vs Sardar SIKANDAR HAYAT KHA

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

The SECRETARY B&R DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA VS Sardar SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN JOGEZAI S. 115, O. XXIII, Rr. 2 & 3---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5, 29(2) & First Sched., Art. 162-A---Suit for recovery of money---Limitation---Permission to file fresh suit---Petitioner/Government assailed judgment and decree passed by two Courts below in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Petitioner/Government sought condonation of delay and contended that second suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was barred by limitation---Validity---Period of 90 days for filing of revision has been prescribed under Art. 162-A in First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908---Bar prescribed by S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply to civil revision---Lower Appellate Court passed judgment and decree on 20-02-2020 and civil revision petition was governed by newly inserted Art. 162-A in Limitation Act, 1908, at the time of its filing---In province of Balochistan, provision of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable to civil revision petitions filed under S. 115, C.P.C. for condonation of delay in filing petitions---Petitioners/Government obtained certified copy of judgment and decree on 11-11-2020, but the petition was filed on 30-11-2020---Delay of nineteen days was not explained---High Court declined to condone delay caused in filing of revision petition---Limitation of ninety days under Art. 162-A of First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908 is relevant only when civil revision petition is filed by party to proceedings---Such impediment is non-existent when Court itself exercises jurisdiction under S. 115(1), C.P.C.---First suit which had been withdrawn was not to be considered and time spent on such suit was not to be deducted for the purpose of limitation even when permission to institute a fresh suit had been granted---Respondent/defendant was allowed to institute a fresh suit subject to all just and legal exceptions---Time spent in prosecution of first suit could not be excluded under O. XXIII, R. 2, C.P.C. for the purpose of limitation---High Court in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decrees passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

The SECRETARY B&R DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA vs Sardar SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN JOGEZAI S — 2025 PLD 140 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD