P L D 1965 W (PLP)
TASADAQ HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TASADAQ HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (TASADAQ HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. WAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Javid Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Raja Rafiq Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Correction mutation‑Filed after long time‑Civil Court decree passed in meantime in respect of same matter although parties were not same‑Correction mutation, held, rightly refused by three Revenue Officers below and petitioner referred to civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
Javid Iqbal for Petitioner. Raja Rafiq Ahmad for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 18th of December 1963, passed by Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the correction of inheritance mutation No. 132 relating to Mst. Hayat Bibi which was sanctioned on the 27th of May 1954. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the mutation on 15‑9‑
59. The respondents agitated the matter and the mutation was reviewed under the orders of Collector dated 10‑5‑
61. The revenue officer refused to sanction the correction' mutation and directed the parties to the Civil Court. 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 parties and have examined the record. The correction was sought to be made after a long time. In the meantime, a decree had been passed in respect A of the same matter although the parties were not the same. In these circumstances, the request of the petitioner was rightly, rejected by three revenue authorites below. No interference is therefore called for. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.