P L D 1961 W (PLP)
SULTAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIFULLAH. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | SULTAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIFULLAH. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 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 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (SULTAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIFULLAH. KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazal Muhammad for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S.84‑Petition for revision‑Can be dismissed in limine without assigning reasons Interference in revision justified only when case falls under S. 115, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).
Judgment & Decree
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S.84‑Petition for revision‑Can be dismissed in limine without assigning reasons Interference in revision justified only when case falls under S. 115, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). Fazal Muhammad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. This is a second application for revision which has been preferred by the petitioner Sultan Khan, a tenant of the res pondent against whom a decree for rent amounting to Rs. 5,247‑3 was passed by the trial Court, viz., Revenue E.A.C. Peshawar. An application was made to the Collector for per mission to file an appeal in forma paupers, but this was rejected on the ground that the decree appealed against was not contrary to law or otherwise erroneous. The tenant was further directed to make good the court‑fee, and his failure to do so, the appeal was dismissed. The tenant thereupon came up in revision to the Additional Commissioner who declined to interfere. A second revision has now been preferred before me. The only ground that has been taken up before me is that the learned Additional Commissioner has not given any detailed reasons for his order declining to interfere. This plea is not tenable, as the Additional Commissioner was not required to do so under the law. The heading of section 84 of the Tenancy Act, which is applicable to this case and which deals with the subject runs as follows :‑ "Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts." Apparently this section confers powers to exercise supervision and control over the working of Subordinate Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts and does not confer any legal rights on an aggrieved party as in the case of an appeal, so a revision applica tion by such a party can be dismissed in limine without assigning any reasons for such dismissal. As none of the grounds laid down in section 1 ;5 of the Civil Procedure Code has been take up before me by the petitioner, there is no justification for inter ference in revision. The petition accordingly stands rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.