P L D 1964 W (PLP)
NOOR MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (NOOR MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Ahmad Khan Bangash for Petitioner.
- Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondent No. 1.
- Muhammad Rashid for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. I5 (3) Review application already rejected‑‑No appeal competent. (b) Practice‑
Appeal may be treated as revision, if filed with in 90 days. (c) Revision‑
Can be filed within 90 days‑Delay can be con doned on good cause. T need not go into the merits of this petition which is not ten able under the law. The original order of the learned Commis sioner was passed on 5‑1‑1962. Later on an application was made to him for a review of this order but it was dismissed on 14‑7‑1962. According to section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act no appeal lies against the subsequent order refusing to review, and confirming the previous order. A revision could thus be filed against the order of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962 which the petitioners failed to do within a period of 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since there is no time limit fixed in the Land Revenue Act for filing a revision petition, the petition may be treated as a revision against the original order/t of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962. 1 am not inclined to accept this argument. No doubt section 16 of the Act does not pres cribe any time limit for exercising revision powers yet it has been field in a number of cases by the Financial Commissioners and Members of the Bard of Revenue that a petition for revision. by a private party should ordinarily be filed within the time prescribed for filing an appeal i.e., 90 days. In this case the revision‑1 has been filed 5 months after the expiry of this period and no i cogent grounds have been put forward for condoning this delay. I would, therefore, hold that the revision petition is not competent and dismiss it. K. M. A. Revision rejected.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Practice‑
Appeal may be treated as revision, if filed with in 90 days. (c) Revision‑
Can be filed within 90 days‑Delay can be con doned on good cause. Rafique Ahmad Khan Bangash for Petitioner. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondent No.
1. Muhammad Rashid for Respondent No.
2. T need not go into the merits of this petition which is not ten able under the law. The original order of the learned Commis sioner was passed on 5‑1‑1962. Later on an application was made to him for a review of this order but it was dismissed on 14‑7‑1962. According to section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act no appeal lies against the subsequent order refusing to review, and confirming the previous order. A revision could thus be filed against the order of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962 which the petitioners failed to do within a period of 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since there is no time limit fixed in the Land Revenue Act for filing a revision petition, the petition may be treated as a revision against the original order/t of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962. 1 am not inclined to accept this argument. No doubt section 16 of the Act does not pres cribe any time limit for exercising revision powers yet it has been field in a number of cases by the Financial Commissioners and Members of the Bard of Revenue that a petition for revision. by a private party should ordinarily be filed within the time prescribed for filing an appeal i.e., 90 days. In this case the revision‑1 has been filed 5 months after the expiry of this period and no i cogent grounds have been put forward for condoning this delay. I would, therefore, hold that the revision petition is not competent and dismiss it. K. M. A. Revision rejected.