1983 PLP 2949 (CLC)
SARDARA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2949 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | SARDARA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure of Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2949 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure of Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2949 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2949 (CLC) (SARDARA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus NAZIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Atta Ullah for Petitioners.
- C. M. Latif Rawn for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 17th October, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ R. 7‑Limitation‑Period of 15 days provided for revision Revision petition filed beyond 15 days, rightly, held, time‑barred. [Limitation‑Revision civil]. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Atta Ullah for Petitioners. C. M. Latif Rawn for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing : 17th October, 1981. The petitioners who are tenants were ejected by the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated 2nd March, 1978 under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure of Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. They took a time barred appeal before the Additional Commissioner. He treated the same as a revision petition and dismissed it as barred by time and for the reason that it was not sufficiently stamped, under rule 7 of the above said; Rules.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the Additional Commissioner had treated the petitioners' appeal as revision petition, he could not have dismissed the same. This contention has no force, as rule 7 of the Rules does provide' 15 days even for a revision petition for an aggrieved person. Undoubtedly, the revision petition was also beyond that. period. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of the Additional Commissioner is without lawful authority. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.