1992 PLP 1346 (CLC)

(b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (Xv11 of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.164‑‑‑Court below having given clear finding on all points raised before it in an elaborate order, no ground was pointed out to interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below‑‑‑Revision was dismissed circumstances. Khan Salahuddin Khan for Petitioner. One Aziz son of Jhanda. sold away 3 Kanals of land~situated m village Sikanderabad Gharbi, Tehsil Shujabad District Multan to, Wahid Bath respondent No.2 vidc Registered Deed No.1465 dated 8‑9‑1975 against a consideration amount of Rs.5,

000. Muhammad Nawaz respondent No.1 op the basis of his superior rights of tenancy filed a suit for pre‑emption in the Court of AC/Collector, Shujabad taking the plea that the land in dispute was actually sold away for a consideration of Rs.2,000 but in order to defeat the suit the consideration amount was wrongly shown Rs.5,

000. During the pendent‑_y of the suit the petitioner who was pre‑emptor in Civil Court, being collateral, applied for impleading him as a party to the case. His request was accepted. Relevant issues were framed and adjudicated upon. The suit was deeree4u on 10‑2‑1986 in favour of the respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. The petitioner challenged the decision of the trial Court before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division but his appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision petition, under para 25 of MLR 115.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.1 was not the tenant‑at‑will of respondent No.2, but he was a Government servant and suit of respondent No.1 should have been dismissed on score of limitation. The court‑fee was not correctly paid and `Zar‑e‑Punjam' ix., Rs.1,000 was also not paid up to 20‑10‑1976, and therefore, the revision petition may be accepted.

3. The present revision petition is time‑barred by 154 days. The prescribed limitation for this revision is 30 days only. The impugned order was made on 4‑6‑1989 whereas the application for the supply of copy thereof was made (according to the certified photo‑copy furnished with this petition) on 5‑8‑1989. The copy was supplied on 22‑8‑1989 whereas the revision petition has been preferred on 30‑10‑1989. The petitioner has claimed that he tried to lodge the revision petition on 30‑10‑1989 but due to strike of the clerical staff the revision could not be lodged. This argument does not hold water on close scrutiny because there is a considerable delay i.e., of two months between the announcement of the impugned order and the date of presentation of application for a copy thereof. Secondly even if the clerical staff was on strike the petitioner or his learned counsel could have presented the revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, as was done in several similar cases by others. Another option available to him was to lodge the petition through the Commissioner, Multan Division, as prescribed vide Rule 3 (1) of the Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959, which reads as under:‑ "3(1) Every appeal and application for revision made to the Board, shall be presented to such Assistant to the Commissioner of the Division to which it relates as may be appointed in this behalf by the Commissioner, or the Clerk of the Court of the Board and shall be immediately entered by him in a register as to be prescribed by the Board."

4. Even otherwise the learned Additional Commissioner has given clear findings on all these points also raised before him in his rather elaborate order and I therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The revision petition is thus devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed on points of limitation and merit in limine. AA./473/R Revision dismissed.