1989 PLP 944 (MLD)
Syed MOHIUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus Syed ABDUL SATTAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 944 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Sind |
| Bench Members | Ayaz Hussain Ansari, Member |
| Parties | Syed MOHIUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus Syed ABDUL SATTAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 944 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 944 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Sind bench comprising: Ayaz Hussain Ansari, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 944 (MLD) (Syed MOHIUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus Syed ABDUL SATTAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Patoi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.8--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29(2)
Review--Application for review of matter filed beyond limitation--Condonation of delay--Provisions of SS, Limitation Act for condonation of delay are not made applicable to provisions of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957--Review petition having been filed under S.8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, there can be no condonation of delay.
Judgment & Decree
S.8--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29(2)
Review--Application for review of matter filed beyond limitation--Condonation of delay--Provisions of SS, Limitation Act for condonation of delay are not made applicable to provisions of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957--Review petition having been filed under S.8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, there can be no condonation of delay. Ali Ahmad Patoi for Petitioners. This is a review petition against my own order dated 23-11-1986 passed in Case No. SROR-331 of 1984-85, whereby I allowed the revision petition of the respondents in respect of S.Nos.457 and others of Deh Pir Jhariyoon taluka Mirpur Sakro.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and case papers.
3. The counsel for the petitioners argued that there is delay in filing the present review petition for that I was engaged by the petitioners to file this review petition, but unfortunately he could not do so m time as all of a sudden, he had been admitted in the Hospital from 12-2-1987 to 26-2-1987 (14) days and thereafter, he was confined to bed rest and still he continues to be under bed rest. In view of foregoing position the counsel for the petitioners contended that the delay caused in filing petition was not intentional, it was for the reasons beyond his control. Since the delay is for sufficient and good reason, he submitted that the delay may be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act.
4. Subsection (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act merely lays down that where Special Law or Local Law provides a period different from the period prescribed by the first schedule, provisions of Limitation Act will apply to the extent expressly speed in this section. According' to this section, only sections 4, 9 to 18 and 22 would apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by the Special or Local Law. Undoubtedly in accordance with the above provisions, section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to the cases under Special or Local Law, unless, section 5 is made applicable by or under any enactment. In view of the provisions contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act. Since the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act have not made applicable to the provisions of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1967, and the present review petition having been filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, there can be no condonation of delay under the provisions of section 6 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, delay in preferring the review petition cannot be condoned and is rejected being time-barred. A.A./296/R Review declined.