| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1839 2005 SLD 1839 = 2005 PLD 136 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 241 of 2004, decided on 11th March, 2005.DATE of hearing: 7th March, 2005
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Abdul Sattar Khan for Petitioner. Malik Manzoor Hussain for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 241 of 2004, decided on 11th March, 2005.DATE of hearing: 7th March, 2005
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Abdul Sattar Khan for Petitioner. Malik Manzoor Hussain for
Respondents
Mst. KISHWAR NASEEMVsHAZARA HILL TRACT and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115,provisos(1),(2)
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 27
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 24
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115, provisos (1) & (2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 24-�Revision---Scope---Cancellation of allotment of plot without proper notice to the allottee---Filing of revision petition by allottee beyond statutory period---Sufficient cause---Object and purpose of provisos (1) & (2) to S.115, C.P.C. were to avoid delay in disposal of revision petitions filed in the High Court unaccompanied by all the required documents sufficient for the just decision of the case so that the requirements of calling for the record of the subordinate Court was dispensed with and the period of limitation of 96 days provided for filing revision petition was made qualified by the words "which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof"---High Court emphasized on the subordinate Courts to comply with the mandatory requirements of S.115, proviso (2), C.P.C.---Sufficient cause for not filing the revision petition within a statutory period illustrated--�Principles.The introduction and addition of the two provisos, into section 115, C.P.C. by the legislature with quick succession, was with the view to avoid delay in disposal of revision petitions filed in the High Court unaccompanied by all the required documents sufficient for the just decision of the case so that the requirements of calling for the record of the subordinate Court is dispensed with. Under the second proviso, the period of limitation of 90 days provided for filing revision petition is immediately qualified by the words "which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof".It has been judicially noticed that subordinate Courts, ordinarily, in majority of cases, do not comply with the mandatory requirements of the second proviso, thus failing to discharge their essential and mandatory statutory obligation by pushing the aggrieved party to the ordeals of old practice of applying to the copying agency for getting copies of the s and decrees of the subordinate Courts, the pleadings, the evidence of the parties and all those documents which are required to be placed before the High Court with the revision petition for just…