Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 12(2),5,14,29

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---Exclusion of time in legal proceedings---Benefit of subsection (2) of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908, dealing with exclusion of time, was available only in cases where there was an appeal, an application for leave to appeal or an application for a review of ---Section 12(2), had nowhere mentioned revision applications---Omission of the words 'revision applications' in the subsection, was not accident---Subsection (2) of S.12 of Limitation Act, 1908 had restricted its application to merely two kinds of applications, namely an application for leave to appeal and an application for review of and benefit of said subsection, was not attracted to revision application. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 5, 12, 14 & 29---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Limitation---Delay, condonation of---Revision petition---Limitation---In judicial system, law of limitation had got its own significance relating to period prescribed for instituting proceedings---Limitation Act, 1908, contained in its fold remedial provisions like Ss.5, 12 & 14, which empowered Court to enlarge the period of limitation in peculiar circumstances of each case, provided those provisions had been specifically made applicable on the proceedings and in the absence of its application, the Court on its own, would not be competent to make applicable the provisions of those sections---Civil Procedure Code, 1908, contained various provisions where S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908, had been expressly made applicable to condone the delay in filing proceedings, if sufficient cause existed in favour of the party who sought condonation of delay, but said section, had not been made applicable on revision under S.115, C.P.C.---Petitioner in the present case, though had filed application for condonation of delay, but the ground for delay taken in his application was not appealable to the mind---Revision petition filed beyond prescribed period of limitation, was not maintainable, in circumstances. Muhammad Inayat and 5 others v. Mst. Nisar Fatima PLD 1994 SC 120; Muhammad Inayat and others v. Fateh Muhammad and others PLD 2004 SC 778; Furqan Ahmad Khan v.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492