P L D 1959 W (PLP)
FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus IMAM KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. K. Malik, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus IMAM KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. K. Malik, 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 1959 W (PLP) (FATEH DIN‑Petitioner Versus IMAM KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Practice--‑ Revision petition before Board of Revenue‑Time limit same as for appeals‑Time barred revision petition filed without any request for extension of time‑Party cannot be permitted to put in petition under section 5, Limitation Act (IX of 1908) during hearing of case.
Judgment & Decree
Revision petition before Board of Revenue‑Time limit same as for appeals‑Time barred revision petition filed without any request for extension of time‑Party cannot be permitted to put in petition under section 5, Limitation Act (IX of 1908) during hearing of case. This is a revision petition against the order of the Commis sioner, Lahore Division, dated 16‑5‑57, upholding the order of the Collector, Sialkot, dated 2‑7‑56, appointing Imam Khan, respondent a Lambardar of village Ghota Fateh Garh, Tahsil Narowal, District Sialkot. Mr. Muhammad Akram, advocate is present for the petitioner. The petition is time‑barred. The order of the Commissioner was passed on 16‑5‑
57. As many as 51 days were spent in obtaining a copy of this order. The revision petition should, therefore, have been filed within ninety plus fifty one i.e., one hundred and forty one days, whereas it has been presented ‑in this Court on 17‑10‑57, i.e., after 154 days from the date of the order of the Commissioner. Although no period of limitation is defined for a revision petition, normally the Board would not entertain these petition beyond the time allowed in appeals. The petition is not accompanied by any request for extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The counsel states that he should now be allowed an opportunity to put in such a request. I am not prepared to allow him to do so. The petition is dismissed as time‑barred. A. M. C. Petition dismissed.