Ahmad Sheikh vs Paris Museum

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This is a revision application directed against the order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge dated the 14th

July 1956. The facts which gave rise to this revision application briefly stated are these. Ahmad Sheikh brought a suit against Paris Museum

through Ghulam Nabi Defendant for the recovery of Rs. 1856/4/- on the basis of Bahi Khata. The Defendant denied being the partner of the firm,

Paris Museum and also denied having signed the entries in the Bahi Khata of the Plaintiff for Rs. 1856/4/ -.

The trial Court found that the Defendant was not the partner of the firm. Paris Museum, and, therefore, was not liable for the amount claimed by

the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal the Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court as regards the liability

of the Defendant but remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that the suit against the firm, Paris Museum, should be decided on

merits according to law.

A preliminary objection is raised that the revision has been filed after a considerable delay and ought not to be entertained.

The order was passed by the Additional District Judge on 14-7-1956 and the revision application was filed on 23-2-1957, after a lapse of

nearly seven months. Although the legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation within which the revision application should be filed yet it

has been the uniform practice of this Court and also of the other Indian High Courts that the revision application should be filed without delay

within the period prescribed for filing an appeal unless some good reasons are shown for the delay in filing the revision application. Reliance may

be placed on the following rulings:

In Kesho Prasad Singh Vs. Mohoendra Prasad and Others, it has been held that although it is not a matter of law, it is a matter of uniform

practice that civil revisions are entertained only if they are filed within three months of the date of the order sought to be revised.

In G.I.P. Railway and Another Vs. Kunj Behari Lal Sharma it was laid down that delay or nearly seven months in filing the application would in

itself be a sufficient ground for declining to accept it.

In Kailash Brothers v. Durga Prasad AIR 1933 Lah 175 it has been held that it is not the usual practice to interfere in revision after great delay

unless reasonable explanation is given for the delay.

In the present case no valid reason is given for the extraordinary delay in filing the revision application. This application therefore, merits

dismissal on that score alone.

There is, however, another objection which has been raised and is equally fatal to this application. The order of the Additional District Judge

dated the 14th July 1956 has completely determined the liability of the Defendant in the suit. He has absolved the Defendant from the liability to

pay Rs. 1856/4/ - claimed by the Plaintiff. The order of the Additional District Judge, therefore, dismissing the suit against the Defendant Ghulam

Nabi amounts to a decree u/s 2 Clause 2 of the CPC and as such is appealable u/s 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. The order of the Additional

District Judge is therefore not revisable.

This revision application is dismissed with costs.