RAHMAN LABROO Vs. RAJAB LABROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the revision petitioner before me whose suit was decreed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs. 2125/ - i.e., 1/4th of tie sale consideration which was annulled to that extent by it. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 28.12,1973. Being aggrieved there by he filed an application for review of the judgment as according to him he could not have been asked to pay the aforesaid sum to the vendee which he had not himself received but which had received by the other defendants in the suit. This application was however rejected by the trial court on 9.4.1980. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order has come up in revision to this court which he filed on 16.10.1980. Since the revision petition was filed beyond ninety days, he also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay in filing the revision. This is CMP No. 13 of 1981. This judgment will govern the disposal of civil revision petition No. 115/80 as well as CMP 13/81.

(2.) STRICTLY speaking no period of limitations provided for filing a revision petition but it has been consistently held by this court that normally a revision petition shall be filed within the same period which is prescribed for filing an appeal against a decree or order. Limitation for filing an appeal being admittedly ninety days, this revision petition which has been filed on 190th day is barred by 100 days. Section 5 of the Limitation Act in terms does not apply to revision petitions. The only question of, this revision petition turns is whether any indulgence can be shown to the petitioner to treat his revision petition within time I have gone through the application seeking condonation of the delay. The only ground urged in this application is that since the petitioner was away on account of his business activities, he could not file the revision petition in time. I must at once say that this is hardly a ground for seeking condonation of delay. If a party is keen about his business activities, it is supposed to be equally keen about his litigation activities. The petitioner ought to have been careful enough that he seeks the remedy under law within time, He has not done so, he has cared more for his business than for his case. He hardly deserves any indulgence at the hands of the court. The revision petition being thus clearly barred by time, it is dismissed accordingly. The revision petitioner, if he is so advised may go in for appeal against the decree itself but that would be subject to just exceptions by the other side. This also disposes of CMP 13/18.