- (1.) THIS revision petition has been tiled by cha defendant-Bank of Broda against order dated February 10, 1988, passed by Sub Judge I Class, Chandigarh, dismissing the review application.
(2.) CAPTAIN R. K. Bhardwaj was employed by Bank of Baroda. Earlier he had served in the Army. His pay was fixed taking into consideration his military service, Subsequently the order of fixing pay was modified and benefit of service was reduced. This order was challenged by aim in a writ position which was dismissed with the observation that since disputed questions, of fact were involved he could challenge the said order in the civil Court. Ultimately he challenged the same by filing a civil suit. After trial the suit was finally disposed of on September 16, 1986. The impugned order dated December 21, 1982 was held to be bad in one respect that instead of allowing nine increments taking into consideration increments. Declaration was thus granted accordingly to that extent otherwise the impugned order was held to be valid. The review application was filed en November 10, i96 which was dismissed as stated above It was held that the review application was filed beyond 30 days and on merits also the same had no merit.
(3.) SHRI J. S. Shahpuri, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that excluding the time spent in obtaining certified copy of the order under review, the application for review was within time. On perusal of the fib it was pointed out that such certified copy of the judgment under review was filed subsequently i. e. in February 1988, and not along with the review application. On that score learned counsel for the respondents plaintiff argued that this copy of the judgment should not has been taken into consideration under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a copy, if benefit of time was to be taken, was required to be filed along with the review application. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Additional Collector of Custom, Calcutta, and Anr. v. M s. Best and Co. , A. I. R. 1966 Cal. 398. The other decision relied upon is of this Court in Hardhan Singh v. Mangal, A. I. R. 1938 Lah. 295. The view expressed by the Calcutta High Court cannot be followed as the Lahore High Court in Jowand Singh v. Ala Singh, (1980) 82 P. L R. 130, has taken a contrary and liberal view. The practice in the Lahore right Court to which this Court is a successor in that sense, has been that certified copy of the judgment was net required if review application was Sled in the Court decreeing the suit. Furthermore the previsions enumerated in tie Cede of Civil Procedure are meant for administering substantial justice aid are not to be considered as hurdles in that way. When factually certified copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed was obtained by the petitioner well within the period of limitation, even though the said copy was not filed along with the review application but was filed later en, the period spent for obtaining the certified copy could be taken into consideration while computing the limitation From the certified copy of the judgment it is noticed that application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on September 27, 1986 and the copy was prepared on October 22, 1986. As already stated above, the civil Court decided the suit on September 16, 1986 and after excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy the application for view was well within time The ratio of the decision in Jowant Singh's case (supra) is not applicable as in that case application for certified copy of the judgment was made after expiry of the period of limitation pi described for the appeal;