⚖️ Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction in Delay Condonation Case
🧾 Ch. Fayyaz-ur-Rehman Khalid v. Amir Javed and Others
Civil Petition No. 1898-L of 2021
Judgment Date: 29 July 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan – Appellate Jurisdiction
🏛️ Background and Procedural History
This case originated from a civil suit filed by Ch. Fayyaz-ur-Rehman Khalid, which was dismissed on 04 December 2014 by the Trial Court due to non-prosecution, a consequence of the petitioner's incarceration at the time. The petitioner had been in judicial custody from 15 May 2014 to 01 July 2015, facing criminal charges under Sections 506 and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), as reflected in FIR No. 504/13.
Following his release, the petitioner approached the Trial Court to seek restoration of the civil suit, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which permits the condonation of delay upon sufficient cause. The Trial Court found his imprisonment to be a valid and sufficient reason and allowed the restoration on 05 March 2016.
However, the respondents challenged this order before the Additional District Judge (ADJ) through a revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, which empowers a revisional court to intervene in cases of jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The ADJ overturned the Trial Court’s order, and this reversal was upheld by the Lahore High Court.
🔍 Legal Focus: Revisional Jurisdiction and Discretionary Power
The legal turning point centered on Section 115, CPC 1908, which strictly limits the revisional powers of a superior court. It states that a revisional court may interfere only when the subordinate court:
Acts without jurisdiction,
Fails to exercise jurisdiction, or
Acts illegally or with material irregularity.
The Supreme Court analyzed the record and found none of these conditions satisfied. The Trial Court had exercised its lawful jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, using judicial discretion in condoning the delay based on verifiable imprisonment. The petitioner’s absence from court proceedings had a genuine cause, which the Trial Court deemed plausible and legally valid.
Hence, the revisional court had no legal ground to substitute its own opinion for that of the Trial Court. This amounted to judicial overreach, an issue compounded by the High Court's affirmation of that overstep.
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court's Final Determination
After evaluating the chain of judicial actions, the Supreme Court made the following decisive findings:
The Trial Court acted properly, within the scope of its jurisdiction and discretion.
The Additional District Judge and the High Court had exceeded the bounds of revisional review.
The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court’s decision dated 05 March 2016, acknowledging the petitioner’s right to be heard and have his suit adjudicated on merit.
The Court directed that the civil suit be decided within three months from the date of this order.
The petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly.
📚 Legal Provisions at the Core
Section 115, CPC 1908 – Revisional Jurisdiction:
Empowers higher courts to examine subordinate courts’ decisions, but only on jurisdictional grounds. It does not authorize revisional courts to reappraise evidence or override discretionary decisions if made within lawful bounds.
Section 5, Limitation Act 1908 – Condonation of Delay:
Provides that if an appellant or applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing on time, the court may admit the application even after the prescribed period. Imprisonment is a valid ground if supported by evidence, as in this case.
Sections 506 and 364, PPC – Criminal Charges Underlying Incarceration:
Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation, while Section 364 concerns kidnapping or abduction in order to murder. The pendency of such serious criminal charges was the basis for the petitioner's prolonged judicial custody.
🧠 Key Takeaways
Judicial discretion must be respected if exercised legally and within jurisdiction.
Revisional courts are not appellate forums — they cannot substitute their own opinion merely because they disagree with the subordinate court.
The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that courts must not let technicalities, such as procedural delay caused by imprisonment, defeat the administration of substantive justice.
This case stands as a critical reaffirmation of procedural restraint, jurisdictional clarity, and the primacy of trial-level discretion when duly exercised. It also offers a clear precedent on how incarceration may justify delay in civil litigation proceedings.
