Government of Bangladesh, Deputy Commissioner, Pabna Vs. Md. Kobad Ali and others, 39 DLR (AD) (1987) 205

Case No: Civil Appeal No 60 of 1985

Judge: MH Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. B. Hossain,,

Citation: 39 DLR (AD) (1987) 205

Case Year: 1987

Appellant: Government of Bangladesh

Respondent: Md. Kobad Ali and others

Subject: Limitation, Procedural Law,

Delivery Date: 1987-03-9

Supreme Court
Appellate Division
Badrul Haider Chowdhury, J.
Shahabuddin Ahmed, J.
M. H. Rahman, J.
A.T.M. Afzal, J.
The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, repre­sented by the Deputy Commissioner, Pabna
Md. Kobad Ali and others
March 9, 1987
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Article 181
There is no period of limitation for a revisional application although the residuary article 181 has prescribed a period of three years for an application.
Case Referred to-
Muhammad Swaleh V. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 (SC) 97—16 DLR (SC) 155.
Lawyers Involved:
B. Hossain, Advocate on Record—For the Appellant.
Ex-parte—For the Respondent.
Civil Appeal No 60 of 1985.
(From the judgment and order dated 9th October, 1983 passed by the High Court Divi­sion, Rangpur Bench, in Civil Revision No. 15. 3 of 1983.)
M. H. Rahman J.
This appeal, at the ins­tance of defendant No. 1, is directed against a summary rejection of an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff-respondents' Title Suit No. 194 of 1973 in the Court of Munsif, 1st Court, Pabna for declaration of title and confirma­tion of possession was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal that suit was decreed on 4th April, 1983. Defendant 1, the Govern­ment, filed a revisional application on 10th August, 1983 before the High Court Division. Finding the application filed 21 days beyond the period of limitation"—the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division asked the Deputy Attorney General of the Government of Bangladesh to file an affidavit disclosing the name of the person responsible for the delay. As the supplementary affidavit, affirmed by a dealing assistant of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, was found as not satisfactory— the learned Deputy Attorney-General was asked to furnish another affidavit affirmed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev), Pabna "to specifically explain the delay and identify the delinquent in causing such delay". The affidavit, affirmed by the Additional De­puty Commissioner (Rev), “Pabna, disclosed that the delay was caused by the Assistant Government pleader and the Government Law-clerk. The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division refused to condone the delay and summarily rejected the revisional applica­tion.
3. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that as no period is prescribed by law for filing an application under section 115 of the Code and as the delay in the matter was explained the High Court Division erred in law in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by summarily rejecting the applica­tion on the ground of limitation. Reliance is placed in this regard on Muhammad Swaleh V. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 (SC) 97—16 DLR (SC) 155 wherein Kaikaus J., observed:
"The Limitation Act does not provide for any period of limitation for an application in revision. The only article which could be applicable was the residuary Article 181 which provides a limitation of three years for an application but even that Article will not stand in the way of the exercise of revisional power for these powers can be exercised suo motu."
4. The above observation is not to be under­stood to have laid down any law that Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs an application under section 115 of the Civil Pro­cedure Code. It merely laid emphasis on the principle that the High Court's power to revise an order suo motu is not restricted by any time limit.
5. There is a long practice being followed since the days of Dhaka High Court that a revisional application is to be filed within the period of ninety days, prescribed by law for an appeal, and that the High Court Division may in its discretion entertain an application beyond that period in a suitable case where there is no negligence or laces on the part of the petitioner. This is a long standing practice otherwise sound and reasonable, and it does not call for any departure.
6. In the instant case much energy has been spent for finding out the functionary responsible for causing the delay in filing the revisional application. As the delay was not inordinate and as there was some explanation for that the learned single Judge ought not to have summarily rejected the application. We condone the delay, allow the appeal and remand the matter to the High Court Division for hearing in accordance with law. No costs