P L D 1962 W (PLP)
MESSRS GUARANTEE LIFE EMPLOYMENT AND INSURANCE Co., LTD. LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | MESSRS GUARANTEE LIFE EMPLOYMENT AND INSURANCE Co., LTD. LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 1962 W (PLP) (MESSRS GUARANTEE LIFE EMPLOYMENT AND INSURANCE Co., LTD. LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 84‑Revision-- Limitation‑Petition not to be entertained ordinarily after expiry of 90 days.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Side No. 521 of 1960‑61, decided on 20th February 1962, District Lahore. Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 84‑Revision-- Limitation‑Petition not to be entertained ordinarily after expiry of 90 days. This revision petition fails on the preliminary ground of limitation. The order of the Commissioner against which this revision has been filed is dated 20‑5‑1961. An application for a copy was made on 17‑8‑1961 and the copy was prepared on 22‑8‑1961, though delivery was taken a day later i.e., 23‑8‑1961. The revision petition was filed on 1‑9‑1961 i.e. 4 days after the usual period of 90 days. No application has been made for explaining or condoning this delay. Though no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Tenancy Act for the exercise of powers of revision by the Board of Revenue it would be but reasonable to expect that the applicant would use due diligence and unless some special cause is shown I would not exercise the powers of revision after the period of 90 days fixed for an appeal. I am also clear in my mind that the restoration of the case would not in any way result in a grave miscarriage of justice. I therefore find no reasons to interfere in revision and throw out the petition in limine. The petitioner should be informed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.