P L D 1966 W (PLP)
SHAHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SHAHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (SHAHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- Abdul Hafiz for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Suit for possession decreed on payment of certain sum as improvement and of deficiency of court fee within certain date‑Court‑fee not paid‑Suit dismissed‑Name of defendant cannot be substituted in revenue records in place of plaintiff on this account.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hafiz for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 13th of September 1963, passed by Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Mst. Fatima brought a suit for possession against the petitioner. This suit was decreed and she was to get possession on payment of Rs. 5,700 as compensation for improvement. It was also ordered by the Civil Court that she should also make up the deficiency in court‑fee and, if she did not do so by the 25th of September 1961, her suit would stand dismissed on that account. She did not make up the deficiency and could not, therefore, get the decree executed. After obtaining a copy of the Civil Court's order, Shahi Khan got a mutation entered for the substitution of his name in place of Mst. Fatima. The mutation was, however, rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Shahi Khan went in appeal to the Collector, but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was also rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, after the dismissal of her suit for not making up the deficiency in court‑fee, Mst. Fatima cannot bring another suit against the respondent and, therefore, her name should be deleted. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The decision on merits was in favour of Mst. Fatima, but this decision could not be implemented because she neither paid the com pensation nor made up the deficiency in the court‑fee. This, however, does not entitle the respondent to have any changes made in the revenue records. After, the dismissal of Mst. Fatima 's suit on technical ground, status quo has to be maintained and no changes can be made in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that deletion of the name of Mst. Fatima from revenue records will be in her interest. It is for Mst. Fatima to look after her interest and not for Shahi Khan petitioner. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference with the concurrent findings of the three revenue authorities below. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.