1989 PLP 1207 (CLC)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revision‑‑Limitation‑‑Revision petition barred by time and no reasonable explanation was given for fatal delay‑‑Finding of fact arrived at by Courts below on point of limitation was unexceptionable‑ Nothing on record showing that any injustice had been done to petitioners‑‑Petitioners failing to point out any jurisdictional defect in orders which were otherwise just, proper and legal‑‑Interference declined in revision. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioners. Shahid Hussain Qadri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1988. The petitioner Miskeen Ali and five others have moved this Constitutional Petition praying therein that order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gujranwala dated 19‑8‑1984 and the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 17‑12‑1987, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. The consolidation scheme of revenue estate Lessar Manjila, Tehsil_Shakargarh, District Sialkot was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Shakargarh on 27‑1‑1983. This order was challenged by the present petitioners in an appeal, which was heard and some modifications were effected in the consolidation scheme and consequently the appeal was partly accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Collector (Consolidation) Sialkot vide order dated 19‑5‑1984. This order was challenged by the respondents Sultan Ahmad etc. by filing an appeal, which was heard and accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala on 19‑8‑1984. The petitioners assailed the said order by filing a revision petition which was heard and dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lahore. It was specifically observed by the learned Member that "Khasra No.380 does not relate to the petitioners pre‑consolidation and that the respondents admitted that "there were some fruit trees pre‑consolidation" and now the same had been cut by the petitioners. The learned Member further noted that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had correctly set aside the amendment introduced by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) in his order. It was specifically observed by the learned Member that the revision petition had been moved after the delay of 10 months and 25 days and that no reasonable grounds had been advanced for the condonation of delay. I am in agreement with the findings of fact arrived at by the competent Consolidation A authorities inasmuch as the revision petition of the present petitioners was barred by limitation and no reasonable explanation was given by them for the fatal delay in the institution of the revision. There is nothing on the record to show that some injustice has been done with the petitioners. The learned counsel has failed to point out any jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities. The said orders are just, proper and legal. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M . Y . H . / M‑997 /L Petition dismissed