Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXII, 115, 117, 141

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Condonation of delay--- Section 5 does not apply to r. 4, O. XXII, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). Section 5, Limitation Act, does not apply by its own force to Order XXII, rule 4, C. P. C. nor has the section been made appli cable by that Rule. Secretary of State for India v. Jwahir Lal 25 I C 49 rel. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Condonation of delay--- Applicant has to justify delay of each day after expiry of statutory period of limitation. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII read with Ss. 115, 117 & 141-Provisions of O. XXII, held, applicable to revision applications by virtue of S. 117. Although Order XXII, C. P. C. does not apply in terms to revision applications, there is nothing in this Order to prohibit its application to Revisions. In this context the provisions of section 117 of the C. P. C. are significant. This section states, "Save as is provided in this Part or in Part X or in rules the provisions of this Code shall apply to High Courts." It may be pointed out that, although the matter is not free from doubt, as the application or Order XXII is expressly barred only with respect to execution proceedings, prima facie the effect of section 117 is to make the provisions of Order XXII applicable to revision applications. Order XXII, does not apply in terms to revision applications, and even if section 141, C. P. C. is not applicable to such applications, it maybe pointed out that the effect of section 117, C. P. C. is to extend to revision applications all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, except those expressly excluded. Merely because Order XXII does not apply in terms to revision applications, it cannot be said that it has been expressly excluded within the meaning of section 117, therefore, prima facie revision applications are subject to Order XXII, by virtue of section 117, C. P. C. Bakhsho v. Piaro A I R 1920 Sind 120; Naoomal Tourmal v. Tarachand Sobhraj A I R 1933 Sind 200; Nawab Sayed Qasim Hussain v. Seth Piare Lal A I R 1939 Oudh 277; Khan Muhammad Saadat Ali Khan v. The Administrator, Corporation of the City of Lahore P L D 1949 Lah. 541; Dasi v. Rudra 21…