Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 1

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLIV, R.1---Pauper appeal---Inquiry into pauperism of applicant to file appeal---Notice to respondents in prescribed form is essential requirement and hearing them if they appeared, a legal must. P L D 1989 SC 771; Mst. Mahmooda Khatun v. Muhammad Habibur Rahman and others P L D 1965 Dacca 358; Saeed Akhtar Siddiqui v. Arbab Hussain and another P L D 1966 (W.P.) Posh. 130; Muqaddar Khan v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. Ltd., Karachi and another P L D 1968 Kar. 523; Dan v. Said and 2 others P L D 1975 Lah. 870; 57 Cal. WN 367; Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan v. Khudayar and another P L D 1975 S C 678; Aziz Din and another v. Oadir Bakhsh and 2 others P L D 1987 Lah. 119; Secretary of State v. Mt. Son Kali A I R 1934 All. 424; Maung Nyein v. Burma Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Mandalay A I R 1939 Rang. 25; Hasan Banu v. Radha Kishan A I R 1948 All. 323 and Shib Krishna Das v. Panchanan Ganguly and others A I R 1961 Cal. 346 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S.115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 156---Revision petition, filing of--Limitation---Revision petitions are not governed by any law of limitation though practice has developed to entertain applications in revision only, if they are filed within ninety days of the date of order sought to be revised---Such practice has developed because period of limitation prescribed for an appeal to High Court is ninety days---Revision filed within ninety days from the order sought to be revised was within time---In presence of exceptional circumstances or where order sought to be revised was palpably illegal, void or without jurisdiction, High Court would not refuse to exercise its revisional powers under S.115 C.P.C. to rectify the error. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----O.XLIV, R.1 & S.115---Court below having not correctly interpreted provisions of O.XLIV, R.1 with regard to pauperism of applicant in appeal, decision of Court in not serving notice to respondents in appeal was in clear disregard of legal requirement---High Court set aside order of pauperism with direction to Court to decide application for leave…