GOHAR ZAMAN vs BABAR-UR-REHMAN R — 2025 PLD 31 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

GOHAR ZAMAN VS BABAR-UR-REHMAN R. 44(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 13---Criminal revision petition, filing of---No limitation provided in the statute---Scope---Trial Court passed order whereby the complaint filed under Ss. 492-B & 492-C Azad Penal Code and S. 203-H, Cr.P.C had been endorsed for further proceedings and respondents were ordered to deposit personal bond---Revision petition was filed against the said order---Held, that allegedly, the revision petition was time barred---Period of limitation provided in other statutes and for civil revision petitions normally extended to 90 days hence, while fixing a period not provided in the statutes it should be fixed in a lenient way in order to provide a reasonable time to an aggrieved party for redressal of the grievance---No period of limitation had been provided under any statute for filing a writ petition before the High Court under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974---In the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Procedure Rules, 1984, no period of limitation had been mentioned in the said Rules for a criminal revision petition but under R. 44(2) a civil revision petition was illuminated to be presented within a span of ninety days from the day of impugned order, thus a criminal revision petition before High Court would be justified to be considered within limitation if filed within a reasonable time of ninety days from the date of the impugned order---Criminal revision petition could be filed before the High Court within the span of ninety days of impugned order and if a person approached the Court beyond that period then he had to satisfy the Court regarding a sufficient cause for not preferring the revision petition, and if he succeeded to satisfy the Court, regarding the delay, the same could be condoned under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Period of limitation could also be condoned under S. 13 of Limitation Act, if the applicant was out of territory of the State, and other exclusion of time provided by the said Act could also be pondered as a sufficient cause for delay---In the present case, the impugned order was announced in presence of the petitioner on 07.05.2024 but he remained indolent towards his rights and filed the instant revision petition after 105 days of the impugned order on 20.08.2024 without assigning even a single word of explanation for such delay, hence, the same was declared as time barred---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

GOHAR ZAMAN vs BABAR-UR-REHMAN R — 2025 PLD 31 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD