Abdul Karim Mir vs Mala Aziz

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This is a revision application directed against an order of Subordinate Judge, Bramulla, dated 26th November, 1962.

The revision application was presented before this Court on 5th April, 1963 alter a lapse of 127 days from the date of the order of the trial

Court. The application came up for hearing before a Single judge of this Court on 21st June, 1963 and a preliminary objection was taken by the

counsel for the Respondent that the application was filed after undue delay and therefore it should be dismissed on that ground alone. The learned

Judge has referred this application. for decision to a large Bench on two grounds: (1) that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing

revision petitions and (2) if the period of limitation for an appeal expires at a time when the High Court is sitting in the other province the period of

limitation for filing the appeal is doubled under Article 156-A of the Limitation Act and whether the same principle should apply to revisions and

the period for filing the revision application should also be doubled.

Before us it is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that there is no time limit with regard to the filing of a civil revision application and the delay may

be condoned. It is contended that ordinarily the period allowed for filing revision application is the same as is allowed .in the case of appeal; the

present revision application had been filed .when the Court was not in Srinagar but had moved to Jammu and therefore under Explanation to

Article 156-A of the Limitation Act time for filing an appeal was 180 days and the same time ought to be allowed for filing a revision application.

The main questions for consideration in this case are whether revision application should be filed within the same period as is prescribed for an

appeal and whether under Explanation to Article 156-A of the Limitation Act the period should be doubled in case of revision application from a

decision of a Court in one province when on the last day of the period of limitation for an appeal the High Court was sitting in Anr. province. It is

true that there is no time limit with regard to the filing of a revision application but it is a settled practice of this Court that applications in civil

revision should also be filed as a rule within the period of ninety days allowed by Law of Limitation for an appeal and the Court has full discretion

to condone the delay provided the Petitioners are able to satisfy the Court that there were unavoidable circumstances which caused the delay and

that the delay in filing the revision application was not due to the negligence of the Petitioners. Revision is a discretionary remedy and if a party

wants to move the High Court in revision it should do so diligently and as early as possible.

For an appeal the period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act is ninety days and. it is held by most of the High Courts that ordinarily

revision applications should be filed within the period prescribed for appeals, that is, ninety days. In Rohtas Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. P.N.

Gour, Receiver of Murli Hills and Others, it is laid down that applications in civil revision should also be filed as a rule within the period of 90 days

allowed by law for an appeal. The same view is taken by the Punjab High Court in, Lakhshmi Narain Vs. Bharat Singh, wherein it is held:

... although the practice of the Court is not to admit revision petitions filed after the ordinary period of limitation for appeals, this is obviously a case

in which there were good reasons for filing the revision petition at a very late stage and therefore its merits should be adjudicated upon.

In Lala Ram Saran Das and Another Vs. Lala Banwari Lal it is laid down that the High Court does not ordinarily entertain an application for

revision made after undue delay. To the same effect is the view taken by the Oudh Chief Court in AIR 1942 392 (Oudh) in which it is observed

that there is no limitation prescribed for the application for revision, but according to the practice of the Oudh Chief Court if an application is

unduly delayed it can be thrown out on that very ground, and ordinarily if an application is filed beyond the period prescribed for an appeal it ought

to be considered to have been unduly delayed.

From these rulings it is clear that ordinarily revision application should be filed within the period prescribed for an appeal and this practice has been

followed by this Court as pointed on above.

The Explanation to Article 156-A is Andhra Pradesh High Court special provision contained in the Limitation Act of our State and it reads as

under:

When the High Court is sitting in one province on the last day of the period of limitation for an appeal from a decision of a Court in Anr.

province.....the period of limitation for an appeal shall be double the period mentioned in the 2nd column of this Schedul opposite Articles 156,

156-A.

The period mentioned in the 2nd column of the Schedule opposite Articles 156 and 156-A is 90 days. So when the High Court is sitting in one

province on the last day of the period of limitation for an appeal from a decision of a Court in Anr. province the period of limitation for an appeal

shall be 180 days instead of 90 days. If the period of limitation is double (sic) of (sic) appeal in certain circumstances there is no reason why in

similar circumstances the same principle should not be made applicable to revision applications.

In the instant case the order was passed by the trial Court on 26th November, 1962 when the High Court was sitting in, Jammu province. The

revision application against the order of the trial Court was filed in the High Court on 5th April, 1963, i.e. after a lapse of 127 days from the date

of the order of the trial Court. As the period for filing an appeal allowed by the Limitation Act was 180 days under the Explanation to Article 156-

A, the Petitioner should also get the same period for filing the revision application as prescribed for an appeal. We, therefore, hold that the revision

application is within time. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent is OVERRULED And the case, shall be put up for hearing before

the Single Judge for disposal on merits, No order as to costs.

J.N. BHAT, J.

I agree.