P L D 1959 (PLP)
AHMAN‑Petitioner Versus SABHOO and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. K. Malik, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | AHMAN‑Petitioner Versus SABHOO and another‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Revision‑, (a) Practice‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Revision‑, (a) Practice‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. K. Malik, 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 1959 (PLP) (AHMAN‑Petitioner Versus SABHOO and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif for Petitioner.
- Khakan Babar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Revision petition before Board of Revenue‑--Time limit same as for appeals. Wrong decision by Courts below on point of law --‑No ground for revision.
Judgment & Decree
Khakan Babar for Respondents. This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 14‑1‑56, upholding the order of the Collector, Gujranwala, dated 20‑9‑54 by which the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Collector IInd grade, dated 24‑4‑54 was rejected. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Asif, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Khaqan Babar, advocate for the respondent. The order sought to be revised was passed on 14‑1‑56 and sixteen days were spent in obtaining a copy of this order. The revision petition has been preferred after one year and three months from that date. Although‑ no period of limitation has been prescribed for revision normally the Board of Revenue, would not interfere if the petition is filed after the time allowed by law for filing an appeal. I am of the view, therefore, that this petition is time‑barred. I have, however, heard the parties on the merits. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the lower Courts have erred in coming to a finding that the relationship of land‑lord and tenants subsisted between the parties. Revisional jurisdiction in cases under the Tenancy Act can be exercised only if the sub ordinate Court appears. (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Even a wrong decision on a point of law or fact is no ground for revision. I do not find that there has been any material irregularity in this case or that the subordinate Courts have acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally. In these circumstances the petition is dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. A.M.C. Petition dismissed.