P L D 1965 W (PLP)
LATIF‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LATIF‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 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 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) (LATIF‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- J. Conphor for Petitioner.
- Syed Muhammad Yunus Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 54‑Appeal does not lie against orders refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order‑Appeal not allowed to be treated as Revision against original order made subject of review, because appeal itself was against order passed in review and original order was not touched upon at all in memorandum of appeal.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following four appeals:‑ (1) Latif v. Muhammad Khan Appeal No. 271 of 1963‑64. (2) Mir Zaman v. Muhammad Khan Appeal No. 272 of 1963‑64. (3) Yousaf v. Muhammad Khan Appeal No. 273 of 1963‑64. (4) Hussain v. Dr. Umer Khan Appeal No. 274 of 1963‑
64. These four appeals have been filed against orders dated the 23rd of July 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Peshawar, whereby the review applications preferred by the appellants against the Additional Commissioner's orders dated the 8th of June 1964, were dismissed, and the previous order was confirmed. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed suits for contesting the liability for ejectment under section 28 of the N.W. F. P. Tenancy Act, as a notice of ejectment had been given by the respondents. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit in view of the deficiency of court‑fee stamp. The appellants went in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed. The appellants then went in revisions to the Additional Commissioner who ordered that the deficiency in court‑fee stamps should be made up by the 8th of June 1964. This direction was not carried out and the revisions were dismissed on 8‑6‑
64. The appellants then filed review applications before the Additional Commissioner but these were dismissed and the previous orders were confirmed. Hence these four appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The legal position is quite clear. Under subsection (3) of section 54 of N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act, an appeal does not lie from an order refusing to review, or confirming on review, a previous order. In all these cases, the Additional Commissioner refused to review and confirmed his previous orders. Appeals are not, therefore, competent in all these cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that these appeals may be treated as revisions against the original orders of the Additional Commissioner. The appellants have chosen to seek a remedy against the second order and have not touched upon the first order at all. In these circumstances, I cannot entertain this request of the learned counsel for the appellants either. All the four appeals, therefore, fail and are rejected, hereby. A. H. Appeals rejected.