What is the Period of Limitation for an Application to Any Court for the Exercise of Its Powers of Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Article 131: (No similar Article in the Act of 1908):

The period of limitation for an application to any Court for the exercise of its powers of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is ninety days and the limitation commences from the date of the decree or order or sentence sought to ‘ be revised.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Image Source: images.flatworldknowledge.com

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Article 131 prescribes a uniform period of limitation for the exercise of revisional powers under the two procedural Codes. The period of limitation is the same whether the revision is filed to the District Court or to the High Court.

The Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 has been repealed by and substituted by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. Under the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the revision power has been conferred concurrently upon the Sessions Judge and High Court and if any person chooses the forum of Sessions Judge in revision he cannot file a second revision to High Court against the self same order in view of the bar of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similar is the case when the party files a revision petition to High Court.

All applications without exception for the exercise of the powers of revision conferred on any Court by the Civil Procedure Code must be filed within 90 days of the date of the decree or order sought to be revised. Similar is the case when the revision petition is filed either to the Sessions Judge or High Court under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The period of limitation is 90 days from the date of the order or sentence.

The expression “under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898” means as contemplated by the Codes.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Delay in filing the application may be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the petition showing sufficient cause for the delay. In Parasnath v. State, (1982 All.LJ 392), it has been held that when the delay was due to wrong advice received from the Advocate the delay may be condoned.

Article 131 is not applicable to suo motu exercise of the power of revision by a Criminal Court.

x

Hi!
I'm Jack!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out