P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(b) Second appeal‑

No grounds stated for admitting time‑barred appeal‑Order of Commissioner set aside in second appeal. Muhammad Sharif Alam for Petitioner. Mirza Abdul Hamid for Respondent. The parties to the present second appeal Taj Din and Munshi were claimants for the Lambardari of village Rajadewali, District Sialkot. On the date fixed for hearing by the Collector which was 14‑5‑1962 Munshi respondent made default, and the case was adjourned to 19‑5‑1962. The Collector, however, finally passed orders on 28‑5‑1962. After weighing the merits of both the parties he preferred Taj Din. Munshi made an application dated 21‑7‑1962 to the Collector for a review of his order but this was finally rejected on 17th September 1962. An appeal against the order refusing to review his order by the Collector was then preferred to the learned Addi tional Commissioner on 27th October 1962. Under the provisions of section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act, an appeal against the refusal to review an order is clearly not competent, and when the legal position was realized on behalf of Munshi an application was made on 4‑2‑1963 that the appeal against the order of the Collector dated 17‑8‑1962 may be converted to an appeal against the original order of 28th May 1962, by which the appointment of Tai Din as a Lambardar was made. The learned Additional Commissioner granted this request and also condoned the very considerable delay in filing the appeal. He then proceeded to weigh the merits of the two candidates and appointed Munshi as Lambardar. A second appeal has been preferred against this order. It is quite obvious from a reference to the various dates that by the time the request for converting the appeal to one against the original order of the Collector was made the appeal had become time‑barred and should not have been admitted without good and sufficient cause. This cause was merely a misunderstanding of the law and it has not been considered by the Courts as sufficient cause either for conversion of the appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner or for condoning the delay. The respondent's case is that even on, 27‑10‑1962 when the first appeal against the Collector's order declining to grant a review was filed with the learned Additional Commissioner an appeal against the original order of the Collector dated 28‑5‑1962 had become time‑barred. No explanation what soever has been given for condoning the delay either in one case or the others. In my opinion the learned Additional Commissioner had no grounds whatsoever for admitting the appeal which was clearly time‑barred in both cases. I would accordingly accept the second appeal and direct that the orders originally passed by the Collector on 28‑5‑1962 be maintained. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.