1994 PLP 168 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.164‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Revision had been directed against order passed by Commissioner whereby he upheld order of Collector vide which Tehsildar was appointed as Manager of impartible joint holding for a period of three years‑‑‑Appeal filed by petitioner against order of Collector before Commissioner as well as review petition filed by them against order of Commissioner, were barred by time and petitioners had failed to explain cause of such delay‑‑‑Period of appointment of Manager having since expired revision petition filed by petitioner could not proceed and was liable to be dismissed on point of limitation as well as being infructuous. Muhammad Hussain Khan Baloch for Petitioners. Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondents. This revision petition has been directed against the orders dated 3‑7‑1988 and 31‑12‑1991 passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division whereby he upheld the order dated 10‑11‑1988 of ' the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sargodha vide which he appointed Tehsildar Sargodha as Manager of the impartible joint holding situated in Chak N0.53/NB, Tehsil and District Sargodha for a period of three years commencing from 10‑11‑1988. .2. 1 have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of the Court file.

3. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Rules, 1975 an outsider cannot be appointed as a Manager of an impartible joint holding. He further contended that in case the co‑sharers are not willing for the appointment of one of the co‑sharers as Manager of the joint holding then such holding can be leased out in open auction to the highest bidder by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector concerned. Lastly he prayed that the impugned order of both the Courts below may be set aside and the revision petition may be accepted. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner filed a time‑barred appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector before the Commissioner Sargodha Division and a review petition against the order dated 3‑7‑1988 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division was also barred by time. He further contended that the period of appointment of Manager has since lapsed, therefore the present revision petition cannot proceed. Lastly he prayed that the present revision petition may be rejected on the point of limitation as well as being infructuous. 5. 1 have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the Court file. It is evident from the record that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sargodha before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division as well as review petition against the order of the Commissioner Sargodha Division are barred by time and the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to explain the cause of delay. Moreover the period of appointment of Manager has since lapsed. In view of these reasons the present revision petition cannot proceed and the same is dismissed on the point of limitation as well as being infructuous. H.B.T./525/R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed.