P L D 1966 W (PLP)
M UDDAI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | M UDDAI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, 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 1966 W (PLP) (M UDDAI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Said Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 83‑Appeals and Reviews‑Limitation governed by Limitation Act (IX of 1908) Period can be extended under S. 5 of that Act.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following four revisions:‑
(1) Muddai v. Muhammad Aslam Revision No. 695 of 1964‑65. (2) Mutali v. Muhammad Aslam Revision No. 696 of 1964‑65. (3) Mst. Sato v. Muhammad Aslam Revision No. 697 of 1964‑65. (4) Gul Muhammad v. Muhammad Aslam Revision No. 698 of 1964‑
65. These four second revisions have been filed against orders dated the 5th of January 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha, where by the revisions preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts in all the revisions are that the respondent as a landlord sought ejectment of the petitioners, who were his tenants. An application was made under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, as amended in 1952. The petitioners did not appear before the Revenue Officer in spite of service and ex parte proceedings were, therefore, taken against them. The Revenue Officer ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector but the appeals were rejected as time barred on the assumption that section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1908 was not applicable to cases which are under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The petitioners went in revision to the Additional Commissioner. But these were rejected. Hence these second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There has been some misapprehension on the part of the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. Section 83 of the Punjab Tenancy Act is quite clear on the point that the whole of the Limitation Act of 1908 has been made applicable to cases under the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 5 is included in the Act and therefore, extension of limitation under this section is possible provided that there are grounds for giving such an extension. The order passed by the learned Collector, was, therefore, incorrect. Under these circumstances, I accept the revisions, set aside order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Collector and remand the cases to the Collector for fresh decision. In the first instance, the Collector should determine the question as to whether he would condone the delay, and if he grants an, extension of limitation, the appeals should be heard and decided on merits. K. M. A. Revision accepted.