P L D 1965 W (PLP)
Mst. SHARIFAN‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHARIFAN‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (Mst. SHARIFAN‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑(Inheritance)‑Appeal, held, time‑barred (more than nine months)‑Additional Commissioner in revision, on strength of "some" evidence remanding case for fresh decision as such "evidence" in opinion of Additional Commissioner, raised a "pre sumption"‑Additional Commissioner at same time admitting that there was a "dispute" regarding ease‑"Presumption", held, not justified when case itself was not established‑No justification for remand in circumstances of case.
Judgment & Decree
‑(Inheritance)‑Appeal, held, time‑barred (more than nine months)‑Additional Commissioner in revision, on strength of "some" evidence remanding case for fresh decision as such "evidence" in opinion of Additional Commissioner, raised a "pre sumption"‑Additional Commissioner at same time admitting that there was a "dispute" regarding ease‑"Presumption", held, not justified when case itself was not established‑No justification for remand in circumstances of case. Akhtar Ahmad for Petitioner. Muhammad Akhtar for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 27th of March 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted and the case was remanded for further enquiry and fresh decision. Briefly the facts of the case are that, on the death of one Rehmatullah, an inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of this widow, Mst. Nanki, and his daughter Sharifan Begum. Niaz Ahmad respondent, alleged to be a collateral, went‑in appeal to the Collector but it was rejected as time‑barred. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner and produce some evidence. The revision was accepted and the case was remanded for further decision. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance, the appeal was time‑barred. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me, to P L D 1964 W P (Rev.)
95. In that case, there was a delay of nearly three days. In this case the appeal was filed more than nine-months after the sanctioning of the mutation. Moreover, the evidence which was produced on the revisional side only raised a presumption according to the learned Additional Commissioner. It was, however, admitted that there was a dispute regarding the case. When the case itself was not established, a presumption was not justified. In these circumstances, there was no justification for remand ing the case. I, therefore, accept the second revision, set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector shall be implemented. A. H. Order accordingly.