P L D 1962 W (PLP)
Syed KHURSHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE‑UD‑DIN‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | Syed KHURSHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE‑UD‑DIN‑ — Respondent |
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 Ahmad, 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) (Syed KHURSHID ALI‑Petitioner Versus FEROZE‑UD‑DIN‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑Revision
Limitation‑Practice‑No revision to be entertained after 90 days unless delay is explained.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 103 of 1961‑62, decided on 20th February 1962, District Lahore. Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑Revision
Limitation‑Practice‑No revision to be entertained after 90 days unless delay is explained. In my opinion this revision petition fails on the preliminary ground of limitation. The dispute related to partition of land and the petitioner who was evidently dissatisfied with the decision of the Revenue Courts filed a civil suit. The revision application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 17‑7‑1957. No dates have been given in this petition when the civil suit was filed nor when was it dismissed. It is for the petitioner to explain definitely every, day of the delay in seeking his remedy in second petition to the Board of Revenue. It may however, be mentioned that there is no period of limitation laid down for interference in revision but it has been the almost invariable practice of they Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue not to interfere in revision on an application by a private party after a lapse of 90 days which is laid down for filing a second appeal. As already observed the petitioner has given no dates at all relating to the prosecution of the civil suit by him and it cannot be said that he acted with promptitude in pursuing a remedy though he might have been mistaken in doing so. I would for the above reasons decline to interfere in revision and dismiss the petition in limine. The petitioner should be informed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.