1982 PLP 573 (SCMR)

2. The appellants filed a writ petition being W. P. 1545‑R/65, but without any success as the same was dismissed on 8‑12‑1965. 3 The appellant filed an Intra‑Court Appeal being L. P. A. No. 8 of 1966 which also met the‑same fate and was dismissed on 13‑2.1969.

4. The appellants have come up to this Court by special leave which was granted on 27‑2‑1970, to consider only the effect of the appeal of the respon dents being allegedly time-barring against the original allotment under in favour of the appellants dated 15‑12‑1959, and the consequent order passed in first revision on 8‑6‑1961 whereby the case was remanded and in the ensuing proceedings ultimately and again in revision was decided in favour of the respondents on 29‑5‑1965.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, but we are of the opinion that assuming, without conceding, or deciding, that the appeal: of the respondents was time‑barred against order dated 15‑12‑1969, the same would not make any difference to the ultimate allotment order dated 29‑5‑1965 of the Settlement Commissioner who passed the same in his revisional jurisdiction which authorised him to call for the record of any case and examine the propriety or legality of the relevant proceedings and orders, etc. assailed before him. His jurisdiction in this respect was not circumscribed by any limitation of time if he at all chose to exercise the same or to proceed with any case for example in his suo motu jurisdiction. This was so held by this Court in Pir Muhammad Farid Jan v. Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage and others (P L D 1965 S C 399) and Syed Mahmud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and others (P L D 1970 Lah. 6) to which one of us (M. A. Zullah, J.) was a party.

6. Another aspect of the present case is that the Additional Settlement Commissioner in first revision in the earlier round passed an order on 8‑6‑1961, whereby he remanded the case for fresh adjudication on the merits of the respective claims and entitlement of the parties. This destroyed the finality of the allotment order dated 15‑12‑1959, on which the appellants relied. The present appellants did not challenge that order by way of any revision or writ petition, etc. He rather submitted to the remand proceedings, and took a chance of a favourable decision; but then in the ultimate analysis in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, he lost the case he wants to revert back to the legality of the aforesaid first remand order dated 8‑6‑1961, by arguing that it was passed in a revision emanating from a time‑barred appeal. Apart from the fact that question of limitation as above‑stated is not involved in a revision, even otherwise, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise this plea at this late stage of the case, when the Settlement Commissioner on merits heard both the parties and thereafter gave a decision against the appellants. The point of limitation in the context cannot come to the rescue of the appellants. 7 Holding, accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same but would leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.