P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

MAULA DAD KHAN‑Respondent Revision No. 156 of 1959‑60, decided on 15th October 1960, District Shahpur. Mutation‑Sanctioned on basis of private partition‑Party filing civil suit challenging private partition and also filing proceedings in Revenue Court for correction of mutation entries Revenue Court need not decide case to avoid possible conflict of decisions. The parties to this revision petition are closely related. Capt. Allah Dad Khan petitioner and Rab Nawaz Khan, respondent, are brothers, Mst. Iqbal Begum respondent is their sister and Mula Dad Khan is the son of their deceased brother. They effected a private partition of their joint property and a mutation to which they all agreed was accordingly sanctioned in 1952. After a lapse of more than five years, the circle revenue officer applied, may be at the instance of Capt. Allah Dad Khan, to the Collector for a review of this mutation on the ground that about13 acres of the joint property had already been acquired by the Thal Development Authority before the private family partition was effected but had erroneously been dealt with as a part of the joint family property and was taken into account during the private partition. The permission sought for was granted and the Assistant Collector set aside the private partition in 1958. Maula Dad Khan was abroad at the time and on his return he appealed to the Collector against the orders passed in review. The Collector came to the conclusion that Maula Dad Khan had resorted to suspicious means to bring his appeal within limitation which in fact was time‑barred. He nevertheless not only admitted the appeal by applying the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act but also accepted it and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector passed in 1958. The present petitioner Captain Allah Dad Khan thereupon referred a second appeal to the Commissioner who rejected it on a technical ground relying on A I R 1944 Lah.

76. Two of the parties Rab Nawaz Khan and Mst. Iqbal Begum had not been impleaded as respondents and though the Collector had extended limitation, the Commis sioner held that as they had not been made parties within the time allowed for appeal, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked for the purposes of imp leading them as parties at a later stage. He further declined to consider the appeal as a revision petition on the ground that valuable right had accrued to some of the parties and they would lose it by converting the appeal to a revision. He thus held the non‑inclusion of two respondents fatal to the appeal which was dismissed. Capt. Allah Dad Khan has now filed this revision petition. Without going into its detailed merits the case can be decided on another important principle. It has been stated that Captain Allah Dad Khan has also brought a civil suit contesting the private partition proceedings. It appears that after the family partition had taken place Captain Allah Dad Khan found that his share included considerable rive rain areas and that he had so to say been almost deceived in to accepting the partition. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that when a Civil Court is seized of the entire matter it should be inadvisable to deal with it in a revenue Court. The proceedings here are summary in character. No regular issues are framed on the pleadings of parties who do not have a proper opportunity to adduce evidence, cross‑examine witnesses etc. This contention is quite sound, and it would avoid a possible conflict of decisions if the matter is not agitated in a revenue Court. I agree with this reasoning and rejected this revision petition. K. M. A. Petition rejected.