| Case ID |
ffbd1dc5-c121-4673-a936-d2874df3e861 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No.170-A of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 03, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 10, 2021 |
| Decision |
The revision petition was dismissed in limine as it was found to be time-barred. The petitioner failed to file the revision petition within the 90-day limitation period provided under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, is not applicable to cases where a special law provides its own limitation period, as is the case under Section 115 of the CPC. The petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Battagram, was also dismissed, as no plausible cause for condonation of delay was presented. |
| Summary |
This case before the Peshawar High Court involved a civil revision petition filed by Asmat against Sahib Rokhan and others. The central issue revolved around the application of the Limitation Act, 1908, particularly Sections 5 and 29, in conjunction with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. The court examined whether the condonation of delay was applicable to the revision petition, which was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed by Section 115 of the CPC. It was determined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, did not apply because Section 115 of the CPC provides its own specific limitation period. The court emphasized that the law of limitation is strict and inflexible, designed to prevent stale claims and ensure the timely resolution of disputes. The petitioner's failure to adhere to the prescribed limitation period resulted in the dismissal of the revision petition. The decision reinforced the principle that special laws with their own limitation periods are not subject to the general provisions of the Limitation Act unless explicitly stated. This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in legal proceedings to avoid the dismissal of claims. Keywords: Limitation Act 1908, Civil Procedure Code, Section 115 CPC, condonation of delay, Peshawar High Court, time-barred petition, legal proceedings, statutory timelines. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Civil Judge-I, Battagram,
District Judge, Battagram
|
| Judges |
Kamran Hayat Miankhel, J
|
| Lawyers |
Ghulam Mustafa Awan
|
| Petitioners |
ASMAT
|
| Respondents |
7 others,
SAHIB ROKHAN
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 835,
2023 PLD 64
|
| Other Citations |
Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286,
City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin 2006 SCMR 676,
2007 YLR 1781
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
115,
5,
29
|