Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 , 5, 12, 14 , 29

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S.115 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 12, 14 & 29 --- Condonation of delay in filing revision --- Provision of S.5, Limitation Act, 1908, has not been made applicable to revision applications moved under S.115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ---Revision application filed beyond prescribed period of limitation would not be entertainable. In the judicial system the law of limitation had got its own significance relating to the period prescribed for instituting the proceedings. The Limitation Act contains in its fold remedial provisions like sections 5. 12, 14 which empower the Courts to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case. Provided them; provisions had been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application the Court at its own would not be competent to make applicable the provision of these sections. Under C.P.C, there are various provisions where section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 had expressly been made applicable to condone the delay in filing the proceedings is sufficient cause existed in favour of the party who was seeking the condonation of delay. But section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been made applicable in accordance to section 29 of the Limitation Act, on the revision under section 115, C.P.C., thus application moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing of petitions, would not be entertainable. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- S. 115 --- Limitation Act (Ix of 19o8), S.5 --- Revision --- Condonation of delay ---Time-barred revision filed on behalf of Government --- In presence of statutory bar, delay in filing revision under S.115, C.P.C. could not be condoned even for the reason, explained by the Government side for Court was not responsible for negligence of official agencies --- Perusal of rile even otherwise showed that petitioner (Government) had knowledge about the impugned orders as certified copies were obtained within time, thus, petitioner could have filed revision without wasting of time --- Revision was not entertainable in circumstances. PLD 1966 SC 276; PLD 1965 SC 618; PLD…