7. The above cited provision of law makes it obligatory for the petitioner to furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court along with revision petition. The word “certified” is absent in the above proviso to section 115 (1) CPC. Inference from the omission of word “certified” clearly absolves the petitioner from filing certified copies of the impugned judgments etc. along with revision petition. Approaching the Copying Agency for obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment, therefore, would not in any manner extend the benefit of section 12 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. The second proviso to section 115 (1) CPC makes it obligatory for the subordinate Court to provide a copy of the impugned decision within three days thereof. Here again there is no requirement of law that such a copy shall be a certified copy. It was, thus, duty of the petitioner to have approached the lower Court which passed the impugned judgment and decree to obtain copy of the same. Once the application was made to the subordinate Court and there was failure of the lower Court to provide copy within prescribed period of three days, revision petitioner could have sought condonation of delay on the ground that it was beyond his control to obtain a copy from the lower forum. It is not the case of the petitioner that he filed an application before the learned subordinate Court for compliance of mandate of second proviso to section 115 (1) CPC and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to get the benefit of section 12 of the Limitation Act for the time spent in obtaining certified copy of impugned decree from Copying Agency. In this regard reliance is placed on the cases of Said Muhammad v Sher Muhammad and 2 others (2001 MLD 1546) and Sultan Khan and 3 others v Sultan Khan (2004 MLD 918).
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Civil Revision-Civil Revision(Against Decree)-Pre-emption
3543-14
| 2017 LHC 311 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment