There is no Specific Article, which deals with the Application for Restoration of Civil Revision Dismissed in Default, therefore Article 181 of the Limitation Act would attract, which provides Limitation of 3 Years ---- SCP
Islamabad 30-01-2024: The Supreme Court of Pakistan while hearing [CP 3125-2020] observed that the application for restoration of the Civil Revision of the petitioner was dismissed on the basis of Article 168 (mistakenly mentioned in the impugned order as Article 169) of the Third Division of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 (“The Act”), which provides for a period of thirty days for maintaining such an application in case of an appeal. Perusal of the First Schedule of the Act reveals that Article 163 deals with application for restoration of the suits dismissed for non-prosecution and provides for a period of thirty days from the date of dismissal for filing such an application, while Article 168 provides for readmission of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and provides a period of limitation of thirty days from the date of dismissal for filing an application for restoration. There is, however, no specific article, which deals with the application for restoration of civil revision dismissed in default, therefore, reliance has to be placed on Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Act, which provides that for an application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule the period of limitation is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. In the present case Article 181 is attracted and a period of three years is available to the petitioner to make an application for restoration of the civil revision. The impugned order is set aside and the petition is converted into appeal and allowed.
The Supreme Court expressed concern that for applications for restoration of a suit and an appeal, the period of limitation under the Act is 30 days, whereas the period for filing an application for restoration of a Civil Revision is three years. The logic for such differentiation is not clear and may be taken up in some appropriate case for consideration as this distinction has not been questioned in the instant case.
Powered by Froala Editor