IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Civil Revision Appln.          :           Nazar Muhammad vs.

No. S- 25 of 2015                             Province of Sindh &Others

 

For the Applicant                 :           Mr. Inayatullah G. Morio, Advocate

 

For Private Respondents   :           Mr. Prem Chand Sawlani, Advocate

 

For official Respondents    :           Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G

                                                           

Date of hearing                    :           10.02.2022.

 

Date of announcement      :           10.02.2022.

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J.         The appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Court of learned 2nd Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 21.11.2012. An appeal was preferred there against, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.2.2015 on account of being time barred. This revision assails the appellate judgment.

 

2.            Applicant’s learned counsel admits that the appeal was time barred, however, submits that the appeal ought not to have been dismissed on a mere technicality and instead should have been determined on its merits. Learned counsel for respondents submits that question of limitation is valid law and it cannot be brushed aside casually when it had admittedly been violated.  Learned Addl. A.G. supported the impugned appellate order and submitted that there is no infirmity therein meriting interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

 

3.            Heard and perused. It is the considered opinion of the Court that the prescriptions of limitation are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire law of limitation redundant[1]. It has been maintained by the Superior Courts consistently that it is incumbent upon the Courts to first determine whether the proceedings filed there before were within time and the Courts are mandated to conduct such an exercise regardless of whether or not an objection has been taken in such regard[2]. It has been maintained by the honorable Supreme Court[3] that each day of delay had to be explained in an application seeking condonation of delay and that in the absence of such an explanation the said application was liable to be dismissed. In the present facts and circumstances the delay could obviously not be justified.

 

4.            This Court has considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity. It is trite law[4] that where the fora of subordinate jurisdiction had exercised its discretion in one way and that discretion had been judicially exercised on sound principles the supervisory forum would not interfere with that discretion, unless same was contrary to law or usage having the force of law.

 

5.            It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the impugned judgment, meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed.

 

 

                                                                    JUDGE

                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1]Mehmood Khan Mahar vs. Qamar Hussain Puri & Others reported as 2019 MLD 249.

[2]Awan Apparels (Private) Limited & Others vs. United Bank Limited & Others reported as 2004 CLD 732.

[3]Lt. Col. Nasir Malik vs.ADJ Lahore & Others reported as 2016 SCMR 1821.

[4]Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar J. in Naheed Nusrat Hashmi vs. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs. Aftab Alam reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 323.