Limitation Act

[IX of 1908]

Section 5—

A lenient view of the delay in filing appeal is taken on the
grounds that the appellant is a poor man and he had no adult male member to
take steps in the matter.

Shamsul Haq vs State 48 DLR 335.

Limitation Act, 1908 [IX of 1908]

Section-5

Petition
is barred by limitation of 195 days grounds taken for condonation are that the
relevant Ministry asked legal opinion for filing a leave petition and also to
get a certified copy of the High Court Division order, that the file was sent
to the Attorney General and then to the Additional Attorney General for
opinion, that thereafter, it was sent to the solicitor who was pleased to
appoint an ‘Advocate-on- Record’, that the solicitors office asked the Ministry
of Home Affairs for supplying necessary documents and papers, that thereafter
necessary fund was sought for etc, there is no good ground for its condonation
petition dismissed.

The Principal
Secretary Vs. Mohammad Abdul Baten 2BLT (AD)-90

Section-5

Delay of 1302 days

Held: I
am of the opinion that the Government’s difficulty should be decided more
closely and carefully as to condonation of delay to give relief to the
Government which is a mere concept and it has to depend on others in making
decision of taking action. In the present case, it is clear that the Government
as a litigant had been very active and it had no negligence in pursuing the
matter. The question is not the days of delay, it is the manner and bonafide
how the delay has been explained. In this case the explanation of delay is
found satisfactory and bonafide.

A.D. C (Rev) Vs.
Mohammad Khairullah & Ors. 5BLT (HCD)-119

Section-5

The
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is a special law and the provision of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable to an appeal
before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

Secretary Ministry
of Post & Tel & Ors. Vs, M. Akramuddin 7BLT (AD)-11

Section-5

Delay of
1038 days in presenting the appeal on a perusal of the application of delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Annexure-B, it appears that cause shown
or explanation made were very much loose. In paragraph No.2 of the said
application it is stated that the learned Government Pleader at the relevant
time did not notice the pronouncement of judgement recorded in suit and did not
inform appellants- petitioners of the said judgement and decree and nor did he
take any step to present an appeal before court and as such the appeal could
not be presented before appellate court. In paragraph No.3 it is stated that
respondent No.4 recently disclosed his success in the suit with respect to suit
property and then present Government Pleader on 24.1.1999 went to Sheresta of
Court became aware of the decree recorded in the suit. No other ground had been
assigned for condonation of dalay. Even it is not stated on which date
decree-holder respondent disclosed his victory in the suit about only stated
recently. This inordinate delay of 1038 days had not been at all attempted to
have been explained properly and the explanation given in the application
cannot be at all Characterised to be a satisfactory and a proper explanation
for condonation of such an inordinate delay.

Deputy Commissioner &
Ors. Vs. Md. A swab Ali & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-12

Section-5

The
delay of 510 days in filing the revisional application — incidents of delays
specially in the office of the Solicitor, Ministry of Law and also in the
office of the Attorney General, who are presumed to be well aware of the
consequence of the delay, are reprehensible. It will tantamount to give a
premium to such gross laches and reckless conduct, on the part of the concerned
official if condonation of delay is allowed in such circumstances — Petition is
rejected.

A.D.C.(Rev) &
Ors Vs. Sofir Ahmed Mia & Ors. 11BLT (HCD)-457

Section-5

It is
not mandatory that an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
must be supported by an affidavit.

Pachi Dashi Mondal
Vs. A C. (Land) & Ors. 11BLT (HCD)-187

Section-5

Condoning
the delay of 1302 days — discretionary matter-it appears that the High Court
Division condoned the delay holding that there was no negligence on the part of
the Government-respondent but it was due to the negligent act of the then
Assistant Attorney General. The High Court Division after considering several
decision of the higher courts of the country as well as of the Indian
jurisdiction found that the delay was unintentional and for no fault of the
respondents-petitioner. Mr. Zahedul Ban led us through the judgment of the High
Court Division and tried to impress that there was an intentional delay and the
Government respondent should not be treated separately as they have no special
status. But from the judgment of the High Court Division it appears that this
aspect of the matter has been fully considered and it is well settled that the
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a highly
discretionary matter and considering the facts and circumstances the High Court
Division exercised the High Court Division exercised the discretion in favour
of the Government-respondent.

Mohammad Khairullah
Vs. A.D.C. (Rev) & Ors 10 BLT (AD)79

Section-5

Impugned
judgment was delivered on 07.- 8.1996 and the relevant file was received by the
Solicitor Wing on 26.08.1996. The process for opening of the past file for
filing the leave petition was started on 19.05.1998 and it continued upto
20.05.2000. The petition was filed on 31.05.2000.— Held : As litigant the
Government stands on the same footing with ordinary litigants, yet considering
the difficulties of the Government in various stages we take sympathetic and
liner view and allow condonation of delay of Government cases in many cases.
But unfortunately this is a case whether such inordinate delay should not be
condoned which will only encourage the officers of the Solicitor Wing to be
irresponsible and negligent in their official duties.

Govt. of Bangladesh
Vs. Md Salauddin & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-138

Section-5

Appeal
is filed four years nine months after the date of the judgement-In the
application it is specifically stated that a salish was held between the
parties where it was settled that the complainant will withdraw the case and
the accused petitioner did not go to the court for the purpose and on tht
belief the petitioner did not go to the court-Held: To satisfy about the
statements made in the petition under section of the Limitation Act, the
learned Judge could examine the petitioner or the complainant or any salishder about
the matter- we think that the accused petitioner may be given a chance to
scrutinize his conviction and sentence after admitting his appeal and we also
hold that ends of justice will be meet if we allowed the accused-petitioner
given such chance.

Abdul Mannan Vs. The
State 8BLT(HCD)-270

Section-5

Delay of
350 days-Petitioner was Suffering from Jaundice and was under the treatment of
a Local Kabiraj and did not Produce any certificate in Support of his illness -Held:
In any view since the petitioner has explained the reasons for the delay of 350
days which appear to be bonafide and satisfactory I am inclined to afford the
petitioner an opportunity to test his fate by filing a revisional application
against the impugned judgment and decree. Having given my anxious consideration
I condone the delay and direct the petitioner to get motion hearing of the
Civil Revision within 2 (two) months from date.

Akub Ali Vs. Ful
Chand & Ors 12 BLT (HCD)479

Section-5

Government Preferred
appeal which was out of time by 4578 days

It
appears that the appellant explained the delay for filing the appeal offering
sufficient reasons for the delay which were beyond control of the appellant and
as such the Lower Appellate Court condoned the delay. The High Court Division
on the other hand passed the impugned judgment and order without considering
the cogent grounds assigned by the appellant and thus committed error in the
decision. In view of the discussion made above we find substance in this
appeal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed without any order as to costs.

Govt. of Bangladesh
Vs. Hasrat Mohani & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)123

Section-5

Delay of 174 days

In the
instant case, illness of the petitioner, financial crisis and poverty
consequence of illness and non-avail-ability of tadbirkar constitute sufficient
cause for condoning delay— Held: we are of the opinion, the causes of delay
being sufficient are allowed.

Md. Zahid Abbas Vs.
Alam Bhuiyan and Ors 14 BLT (HCD)266

Section-5

The
doctrine of equality —impersonal machinery Prayer from the Government for
condonation of delay of 207 days —Held: Though the uniform view of the Courts
of the subcontinent is that in the matter of condonation of delay Government
does not enjoy any special privilege or will not have special latitude or that
in the matter of condonation of delay Government and private party would be
accorded same treatment or that as litigant the Government and the ordinary
litigant stand on the same footing, yet when on the part of the Government
there has been no gross negligence in prosecuting the matter or there has been
‘special circumstances’ because of which delay occurred or that particularly
the process through which decision is made by the Government for filing appeal
revision and the same is considered “appropriate circumstances’, or that as the
government represents the “collective cause of the community” or that the delay
is not deliberate and the explanation offered reasonable or when in the
decision process file does not move through stage(s) which has nothing to do in
the matter of decision making, or the file was not referred to functionaries
who were nobody in the decision making process or that non-hearing of the
matter on the ground of limitation would unjustly benefit the party who
apparently appears to have manipulated the functionaries of the Government to
waste time in the decision making process in bringing the matter before the
Court for adjudication on merit or when the necessity or justification or
reasonableness of hearing the matter on merit would ought way the hardship to
other side in case of condonation, the prayer from the said of the Government
for condonation of delay has been considered with somewhat leniency, but not in
the absence of reasonable or close to satisfactory explanation for the delay
caused.

Sonar Bangla Service
Station Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors 16 BLT (AD)99

Section—5

The
Petitioner filed Petition for leave to appeal and the Said Petition for leave
to appeal was dismissed since the learned Advocate-on-record represented to the
Court that he had no instruction to proceed with the petition for leave to
appeal —Seeking restoration of the Petition for leave to appeal was out of time
by 1387 days, it has been stated that the petitioner used to inquire of the
learned Advocate-on-record regularly about the position of the leave Petition
and the Petitioner was informed by the learned Advocate-on-record that the
leave Petition awaiting hearing —Held: Since in our view there was no reason
for the learned Advocate- on-record while the petitioner inquired of him about
the position of the leave petition not to give the state of the leave petition
or that not to tell the petitioner about the disposal of the leave petition in
the manner as stated hereinbefore.—explanation offered seeking condonation of
delay is not convincing and satisfactory.

Adamjee Sons Ltd.
Vs. Jiban Bima Corporation 16 BLT (AD)181

Section —5

Since
the tadbirker is a poor illiterate villager cultivator and he was seriously ill
due to Jaundice (Hepatitis) from 02.10.2002 to 20.07.2003, the file was
Misplaced  and since the petitioner has
no willful laches. Hence the Rule having is considered.

Ruhul Quddus &
Ors Vs Abdul Wahab Mollah & Ors 16 BLT (HCD)252

Section-5

The law
of limitation is to be applied strictly in special cases under Special laws.
When a convict is tried under the Special law, which prescribes a special
period of limitation for appeal against an order or judgment by a Special
Tribunal or Tribunal or a Bishesh Adalat, as the case may be, in view of section
29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 thereof cannot be applied to exclude the
lime prescribed by the said Special Law. —In proceedings under special law the
appeals must reach file appellate Cot in order to prevent their being
time-barred. A special law means a law enacted for special cases, in special
circumstances, in contradiction to the general rules of the law laid down as
applicable generally to all cases with which the general law deals. If a
convict is sentenced to imprisonment for life in proceedings under special law
his appeal will be dismissed even if, the appeal is delayed by one day.

Ayar @ Ayaruddin
& Ors Vs The State 12 BLT (HCD)434

Section-5 read with Article-157

If an
appeal against an order of acquittal is filed by the Government either before
the High Court Division or the Court of Session beyond the period as provides
in Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Then in such a case an application
seeking condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
very much entertainable if the Court is satisfied with the explanation offered
as to how delay occurred. then is quite competent to condone the delay.

Dr. M.A. Mazed &
Ors Vs Bangladesh & Ors 12 BLT (AD)154

Sections-5 and 29(2)

Artha
Rin Adalat Act, 1990—Section 7(1) Special Period of Limitation in a special
law— Section-S of the Limitation Act has no application to the Artha Rin Adalat
cases relating to the filing of appeal.

Rupali Bank Ltd. Vs.
Mr. Iqbal Kaisar 1BLT (HCD)-53

Section-14

Administrative
Tribunal Act being a special law if provision of section 14 of the Limitation
Act applies. If the time for disposal of the writ petition can be excluded in
competition of the period of limitation of six months, from the date or order
of termination.

Section
29 of the Act says that the provision in section 4, sections-9- 18 and section
22 shall apply to a case under a special or local law only in so far as, and to
the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local
law.

Bangladesh Bank
& Ors Vs. Mohammad Abdul Mannan 2BLT (AD)-101

Section —14

Delay of 4198 days

Pre-emptor
instituted Pre-emption case after a Period of long 8 years and the Pre-emption
case was allowed —Pre-emptee Petitioner having felt aggrieved filed appeal and
was absent on the date fixed for hearing of admission of the appeal and the
appeal dismissed on merit —Pre-emptee Petitioner due to wrong advice of the
learned Counsel, Presented a petition under section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure and the said petition was rejected and being aggrieved, the
Pre-emptee Petitioner again approved High Court Division

and
lastly carried civil petition for leave appeal —Pre-emptee Petitioner now had
been properly advised to move Two Civil Revision Petitions under section 115(1)
of The Code against Judgment dated 30.7.1994 recorded by learned District
Judge, Dhaka by which Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed on merit —Held:
Delving into facts and circumstances of the case as emerged from statements
made in Petitions and documents annexed as Annexure and taking into account
object of doing substantial Justice to parties concerned I am of this
considered view that section 14 of The Limitation Act can be very much pressed
into service in support of case of Pre-emptee-Petitioner and Pre-emptee
Petitioner has made out a case which persuade me to condone the delay, though,
inordinate but without any fault of Pre-emptee-Petitioner. Discharging Rules on
technical ground of limitation would not in any way advance the interest of
Justice, Fate of Pre-emption Miscellaneous Case can be very much determined in
Civil Revision Petitions. Is it posited here that technicality of law of
limitation cannot prevent this Court from doing substantial Justice when
Pre-empteePetitioner could make out a case for condonation of delay and, also,
in getting Civil Revision Petitions heard and disposed of on merit. It is
posited here that primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between
the parties to advance substantial Justice. Time limit fixed for approaching
the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a
bad case would transform into a good cause. If the explanation offered for
condonation of delay does not smack of malafides the Court must show utmost
consideration to the suitor.

Md. Golam Hossain Vs
Badiuzzaman Bhuiyan & Ors 16 BLT (HCD)293

Section-14 and Section-29(2) read with Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1980 Second Proviso to Sub-Section-(2) of Section-4

It is
clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act that the legislative intendment behind this
provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative
Tribunals Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by subsection (2) of
section 29. The petitioner cannot, therefore, the benefit of Section- 14 of the
Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation in filing his
application before the Administrative Tribunal.

Abul Bashar Vs.
Investment Corporation of Bangladesh & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-21

Section-26 and 27

The Limitation of
adverse Possession

Since
title by adverse possession, is relating to the possession, which is not legal
and obtained by some unlawful manner and by continuity for specific period the
persons concerned is claiming title thereupon, it must be categorical and
specific.

Md. Nurul Haque Vs
Mst: Anowara Begum & Ors 13 BLT (HCD)31

Section-28

Section
28 of the Limitation Act has no application to persons who are in possession
and who have had no occasion to sue for recovery of possession.

Md. Abdul Ban
Muktear Vs. Md.Nurul Islam & Ors 12 BLT (AD)126

Section 28

Extinguishment of
right to property

In 1927
Habu Khalifa, father of the plaintiffs entered into possession of the suit land
on the basis of an oral settlement, and possessed till his death in 1965 with
clean animus that he became the absolute owner of the suit land and in complete
negation of any right or title of any person including the rent receivers and
then, on his death the plaintiffs have similarly been continuing and enjoying
their possession on assertion of their own right and title overtly and openly
and without any attempt at concealment. Such long continuous possession with
clean animus of an absolute owner must be held to be hostile to anybody
including the defendants. To make such possession hostile, and consequently,
adverse the plaintiffs were never required to announce /publicise their
hostility by beat of drums.

Md. Mahamood
alam  & anr  Vs. Muklesur Rahman Bhuiyan 10 BLT (HCD)235

Article-92

The
signature and thumb impression in the solenama are forged — when would
limitation begin to run — the period of limitation will run from the date of
the knowledge of the forgery of the solenama.

K. Khatun & Ors.
Vs. II. Biswas & Ors. 4BLT (HCD)-126

Article-95

It is
Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act which governs a suit to
set aside a decree obtained by fraud or for other relief on the ground of
fraud. It provides 3 years from the time when fraud comes known to the party
wronged.

Govt. of Bangladesh
Vs. Ramananda Sarker. 9BLT (AD)-30

Article-113

Article
113 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act is the proper provision which
governs a suit for specific performance of a contract. Under this article the
period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance or,
if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is
refused. It is nobody’s case that any date was fixed for performance,

A.D. C. (Vested
Properly) Vs. Md. Serajul Islam & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-132

Article-113

Period of Limitation
in filing a suit for specific performance of the contract.

Limitation
will run according to 113 of the Limitation Act from the date when the
plaintiff noticed that the performance is refused, and the suit is to be filed
within 3 years from the date of first refusal, the limitation will not be
extended for Subsequent refusal or recurring refusal or on the basis of cause
of action as founded on the last date of refusal.

Panna Khan &
Ors. Vs. Birendra nath Halder & Ors. 8BLT(HCD)-305

Article-113

Suit for specific
performance of contract – plaintiff is to file within 3 years from the date of
expiry or the date of refusal.

In the
instant case, the agreement was executed on 19.12.1990. The term of the
agreement was that the plaintiff is to execute and register the sale deed
within 15 days getting the rest consideration money. It has been proved that
the plaintiff neither tendered balance consideration money nor did he file the
suit for specific performance of contract within time. The plaintiff has also
totally failed to proved the factum of refusal by the defendants. 15 days from
the date of execution of the agreement dated 19.12.1990 stands on 04.01.1991
and 3 years from 04.01.1991 stands on 04.01.1994. The plaintiff ought to have
file suit for specific performance of contract within 04.01 .1994 but the
plaintiff filed the suit on 31 .02.1998 that is he has filed the suit long
after 4 years 2 months and 9 days of the statutory period of limitation.

Mohammad Ali Miah
& Ors Vs. Md. Sekander Ali Haowlader 15 BLT (HCD)484

Article -120

The
Limitation Act does not specifically provide for any particular period of
limitation in filing suits by a Muslim for arrears of maintenance although
Articles 128 and 129 of the first schedule provide for a period of 12 years
each by a Hindu for arrears of maintenance and for a declaration of his right
to maintenance and the time for which period begins to run is when the arrears
are payable. No such corresponding provisions exist in respect of suit filed by
a Muslim for a corresponding relief. Residuary Article 120, providing for a
period of limitation of 6 years from the time’ when the right to sue accrues in
respect of a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in
the first schedule, will be applicable to a suit for maintenance under
ordinance of 1985.

Jamila Khatoon Vs.
Rustom Ali 4BLT (AD)-97

Article- 120

The
plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title stating that his cause for
seeking such relief arose on October 27, 1969. As stated earlier the suit was
filed on September 3, 1976. In the background of the aforesaid fact the relief
so sought was barred in view of the provision of Article 129 of the Limitation
Act. The other relief i.e. relief b(I) was also barred under Article 120 of the
Limitation Act in the background of the fact stated hereinbefore. It may be
mentioned that the reliefs (a) and (b) i.e. declaration of title in respect of
the property in schedule ‘A’ and recovery of khas possession of the property
described in schedule ‘B’ are independent reliefs and as such in case the
relief as regard declaration of title if is found to be barred then there is no
question of granting relief as to recovery of possession of the property (in ‘B’
schedule) which is part of the property in respect whereof declaration of title
has been sought.

A N M W Nabi &
Anr Vs. Md. Balai Roy & Ors 15BLT(AD)27

Article- 148

The
transfer in question is a complete usufructuary mortgage, so limitation will be
Governed by Article 148 of the Limitation Act which is 60 years.

Rajuddin Chowdhury
Vs. Suruj Ali 3BLT (HCD)-135

Section- 148

The
plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and both the courts below
found that a suit for redemption of mortgage is maintainable and the same
having been filed within 60 years from the accrual of the cause of action the
suit was not barred by limitation. The learned Single Judge wrongly held that
the suit for redemption is barred by limitation. A reference to Article 148 of
the Limitation Act clearly shows that the limitation of filing such a suit is
60 years and as such the learned single Judge wrongly held that the suit was
barred by limitation.

Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur
Rafique Mridha & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-12

Article- 149

When the
period of limitation runs in case of govt. khas land. Suit land being khas
land, limitation of 60 years will apply to this case the plaintiff claims
adversely against the government.

Fazlur Rahman Vs.
Bangladesh 1BLT(HCD)-18

Article-155 First Schedule

Period
of Limitation in filing Criminal Revision Neither the Code of Criminal
Procedure nor the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes any period of Limitation for
filing criminal revision before the High Court Division but following be the
long standing practice, which has by now become a rule of law, this Court regards
60 days as the period of limitation for filing a criminal revision, In spite of
this practice, this Court usually takes a lenient view in condoning any
reasonable delay whenever it finds the applicant not guilty of deliberate
laches and negligence in prosecuting his case.

Md. Khadem Ali Vs.
The State 8BLT (HCD)-189

Article-164

Order-9
Rule-13—In the instant case defendant opposite party-2 admittedly received
summons, duly filed written statement in the suit and obtained a number of
adjournments and ex parte decree was passed against her, their application
under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. must be filed within 30 days from the date of the
ex parte decree and not from the knowledge of such decree — relied on 13
DLR-225, 25 DLR-91, 25 DLR-250 1952 PLD (Lahore) 456.

M. A. Hossain Khan
Vs. Awlad Hossain & Anr. 5BLT (HCD)-106

Article- 164

Petitioner’s
case under order-9 rule- 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure—no specific
objection was taken in the written objection regarding limitation and no
evidence was led to prove that defendant No. 2 had definite knowledge about the
ex parte decree earlier than what was stated in his application—in this case,
it is manifestly evident that fraud was practiced upon the court in obtaining
the ex parte decree on fraudulent suppression of summons on the defendant
petitioner—Held: I am inclined to hold that the alleged delay of the petitioner
in coming to the Court for vindication of his grievances, as found by the
learned Courts below, cannot stand in the way of his getting the relief, to
which he i otherwise entitled to under the law, th essence of law being to
advance the cause o justice and not to frustrate it. If fraud i allowed to be
perpetrated and perpetuated, th sanctity attached to law will neither away
with] disastrous consequences for the society. hold, in the circumstances of
the case, than  Article 164 of the
Limitation Act is no bar against the petitioner in getting the relief

Md. Yousuf Ali  Vs. Araj Ali & Ors. 6BLT (HCD)-129

Article- 164

The
application order 9 rule 13 of the Code o Civil Procedure was not barred by
limitation in the facts of this case as limitation is to be counted from the
date of knowledge o defendant No. 8 under Article 164 of the Limitation Act as
the summons was not duly served upon her.

Ful Meher Bibi being
dead her heirs Savura Khatun & Ors. Vs. Abdul Wahab & Ors. 13 BLT
(AD)184

Article – 173

In a
money suit by Rupali Bank against Private Ltd. company and its Director
defendants, names of Directors or defendants being struck off at their instance
and their transferees being implead-ed subsequently in presence of Bank’s
representative, plaintiff Bank without seeking any remedy within 10 months and
without giving any explanation o delay filed a review petition which was
rejected and against which in plaintiff Bank preferred revisional application
which was also rejected on ground of limitation — No illegality done plaintiff
directed to take action against its own wrong doers. The order of the trial
court striking off the names of the defendants guarantors is improper, but as
it was passed in presence of the Banks representative  and no action was taken in time by seeking
remedy from the superior Court, the petition for correction of the order ,
being delayed, was legally rejected The petitioner bank should action against
wrong doer.

Rupali  Bunk Vs. Tobacco industry Ltd and other 1BLT
(AD)-33

Article 182 (2)(3)(6)

The time
should run from the date of the final decree and the right to apply for
execution accrues on the date of the final decree of the appellate Court or
revisional Court.

Hares Mia Vs.
Khursheda Khatun & Ors, 4BLT (HCD)-84

Period of filling a
revisional application in the High Court Division under section 115 C.P.C

There is
no period specifically prescribed under the 
Limitation Act, 1908 for filing a revisional  Application 
in the High Court Division under Section 115 C.P.C. But as a matter of
long standing practice such revisional application  is filed in the High Court Division within 90
days from the date of the order complained of as has been prescribed for filing
of appeal in the High Court Division. In the absence of any prescribed period
of limitation, no question can legally be raised that a revisional application
under Section 115 C.P.C is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond 90 days;
but as a matter of practice and prudence, the High Court Division before
exercising its discretionary power under Section 115 C.P.C should satisfy
itself that no unconscionable delay has been caused wilfully in filing such
revisional application.

Suraiya Ashraf &
Ors. V. Rahimullah Chowdhury 7 BLT(AD)-13A

Article —182(3) & Article —182(5)

We are
or opinion that either the  decree holder
or the judgment debtor could inform the executing court regarding modification
of the trial courts decree by the appellate court of the  Executing Court could suo motu proceed with
the pending Execution case No. 18 of 980 as the same did not become time
barred. We are also of the view that in the instant case the provisions laid
down in Article 182(3) of the Limitation Act providing for three  years time after passing final order in the
review application shall apply and the Provision of Article 182(5)of the
Limitation Act is not applicable.

Kazi Sahamsul Huq
& Ors Vs. Robeya Begum & Ors 15 BLT (AD) 79.