P L D 1966 W (PLP)
GHULAM SAFDAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. SAADAT SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM SAFDAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. SAADAT SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, 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 1966 W (PLP) (GHULAM SAFDAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus Mst. SAADAT SULTAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Jafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Revision-Interference in second revision can be made only if there had been wrong exercise of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in Courts below or there was material irregularity or illegality-Question of fact-No interference.
Judgment & Decree
Revision-Interference in second revision can be made only if there had been wrong exercise of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in Courts below or there was material irregularity or illegality-Question of fact-No interference. Muhammad Jafar for Petitioner. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 15th of November 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner, (Revenue), Rawalpindi, whereby the first revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Mst. Saadat Sultan brought a suit for the recovery of her share of the profits for Kharif 1958 to Kharif 1961. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, granted a decree for Rs. 2,107.25 against Ghulam Safdar Khan, petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector, but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was also rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A second revision would be justified only if there had been any wrong exercise of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts below or if there was any material irregularity or illegality. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there is no question of the exercise of any wrong or unauthorised jurisdiction. He, however, contends that, in spite of the fact that the first Court found that a part of the produce had been received by Mst. Sardar Begum, who was not a party to the suit, the entire claim of Mst. Saadat Sultan was decreed against the petitioner. I am afraid this is a question of fact. A reference to the record shows that issue No. 2, in which there was a mention of Mst. Sardar Begum was found in favour of Mst. Saadat Sultan. Moreover, it is a question of fact and, even if the decision was not correct in the opinion, of the learned counsel for the petitioner, an interference would not be justified. In these circumstances, the second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.