1986 PLP 2147 (CLC)
HUMAYUN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2147 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | MaqbuL Ahmad Sheikh, Member (Colonies), |
| Parties | HUMAYUN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2147 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2147 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: MaqbuL Ahmad Sheikh, Member (Colonies),.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2147 (CLC) (HUMAYUN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5--Review--Limitation- Condonation of delay--Order under review having been passed in presence of petitioner, review, held, could be preferred only within prescribed period of ninty days--Plea of condonation being totally irrelevant was rejected and review petition dismissed as time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE--Respondent Review No.51 of 1986, decided on 25th February, 1986.
S. 8--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5--Review--Limitation- Condonation of delay--Order under review having been passed in presence of petitioner, review, held, could be preferred only within prescribed period of ninty days--Plea of condonation being totally irrelevant was rejected and review petition dismissed as time-barred. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. This review has been moved by the petitioner Humayun under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act against orders of my learned predecessor passed in R . 0. R . No. 689 of 1984 under which his revision was dismissed on 1-4-1984. 2. The review petition has been heard on the preliminary issue of limitation. In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act in an attempt to seek condonation of delay of 588 days it has been pleaded that the time in excess of the limitation of 90 days was spent in seeking the correction of entries of register Girdawari. I am afraid this plea cannot be accepted as a valid explanation for the condonation of delay. Since, the order under review was passed in the presence of p the petitioner, the review could have been preferred only within the prescribed period of 90 days. The plea for condonation is totally irrelevant and is rejected as such. The review petition is accordingly A.A. Review petition dismissed.