P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)
MOHSIN‑ — Petitioner Versus BHAMBHO — ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1972 Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sind |
| Bench Members | Nusrat Hasan, Chief Land Commissioner, Sind |
| Parties | MOHSIN‑ — Petitioner Versus BHAMBHO — ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sind bench comprising: Nusrat Hasan, Chief Land Commissioner, Sind.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1972 Rev (PLP) (MOHSIN‑ — Petitioner Versus BHAMBHO — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Madad Ali Adil for Petitioner.
- Ali Murad Khemtio for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, r. 10(2) read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)‑--Appeal time--‑barred under r. 10(2) of Land Reforms Rules‑Provision of S. 5, Limitation Act not applicable in such case‑Delay cannot be condoned, in circumstances of case.
Judgment & Decree
r. 10(2) read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)‑--Appeal time--‑barred under r. 10(2) of Land Reforms Rules‑Provision of S. 5, Limitation Act not applicable in such case‑Delay cannot be condoned, in circumstances of case. Madad Ali Adil for Petitioner. Ali Murad Khemtio for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order dated 12‑7‑1971 passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent regarding grant of B. Nos. 165/5, 166/5 to 12 and 169/3, 4, 4‑A, 5(13‑27 acres) deh Gaad, Taluka Tando Bago, District Hyderabad.
2. The impugned order was passed on 12‑7‑1971 and the appeal has been filed on 30‑7‑1971. According to rule 10 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, the appeal could be filed within 10 days of the date of order and according to rule 13 of the Rules, the period duly spent in obtaining certified copies of the orders has to be excluded. The counsel for the petitioner contended that he had applied for copy of the order on 16‑7‑1971, which was supplied to him on 22‑7‑1971 and that excluding this period his appeal would be in time. He also argued that even if his appeal be time‑barred by one day, it may be treated as revision petition in which case, the limitation period would be 30 days.
3. The impugned order was announced on 12‑7‑1971. The petitioner did not apply for copy for 13, 14 and 15 i.e., 3 days. The copy was supplied to him on 22‑7‑1971 and he filed the appeal on 30‑7‑1971 i.e., he took 8 days more in filing the appeal. Even the petitioner is to be blamed for the delay in issue of the copy as he supplied the stamps on account of copying charges only on 22‑7‑1971 and as such the authorities were not expected to prepare the copy earlier in absence of supply of the court‑fee stamps. In any case, the appeal is time barred at least by one day. The limitation provided in rule 10(2) of the Land Reforms Rules. 1959 is prescribed by a special law i.e., Land Reforms Regulation 64 of 1959 and thus section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable. By virtue of the provisions of the said section 29(2), the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply and as such the delay in filing time -barred appeal under rule 10(2) ibid cannot be condoned. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as time‑barred. Appeal dismissed.